User:Thierry97/Cimex hemipterus/MitchHaddock 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)
 * Thierry97
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Thierry97/Cimex hemipterus

Lead (not edited yet)
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The information is very relevant and a crucial aspect that is nice to have for identification. All content is up to date and within the last 10 years. Content is missing but this is great starting from a blank slate. There is a lot of solid information in here that adds to the page. Keep doing this for all the sections and you will be good.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Everything seems to take a neutral stance. There is no opinion inserted and no persuasion to favor any opinions. This is about as factual and unbiased as it gets.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the links work, except for the "bed bugs" CDC link. All of the added content is backed by the secondary sources of information. All the sources seem to be reliable sources. The sources are pretty thorough and contain a review which covers most of the topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is written in a concise and clear manner that is easy to read. First sentence in the life cycle, you forgot the "h" in nymphal. That was the only grammar/spelling error that I saw while reading through this.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
This is a great picture that adds understanding to the topic. The caption is describes what the picture is. I would double check it though because the jpg file name calls it a different species.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
There seems to be enough sources on this topic. You could use more sources but that should come with researching. The sections so far are relevant and similar to other articles. It is linked in the main bed bug article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content greatly improves the information in the article, considering there was only one sentence to start. The content is neutral, clear, and concise. The only thing that really needs to improve is the amount of sections and the lead needs to be greatly improved.