User:The Gneiss Guys/Bioindicator/Restless Nomad Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) The Gneiss Guys
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:The Gneiss Guys/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The author doesn't edit the lead as much as the overall content. But the article that the author is reviewing does concisely describe the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead was concise. Could potentially add more but it's ok on it's own.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There's a couple spots where "citation needed" is placed, that should just include the citation.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?I think the article does deal with an underrepresented topic by adding a section on gastropods.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not from what I can tell. Towards the end of the paragraph it does seem like the author is going somewhat off topic by talking about some of the side effects of the pollutants. That part would be best put in a different (or it's own) section.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sources seem throrough.
 * Are the sources current? Source number 5 seems outdated as it was published in 1982 but the rest of the sources are current (within the last decade).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? This is hard to tell from the names alone.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They do!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Organization is clear
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are several sentences that could use more punctuation.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Overall, yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

**There were no new images or media added to the article.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is just right (9 sources).
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?No

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, adding in gastropods was a necessary part that was missing and the section contributed by the author was an appropriate length.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It adds more breadth to the types of aquatic bioindicators that are used in this specific field.
 * How can the content added be improved? Fixing the grammatical errors in the "gastropods" section would make the content better.