User:Tkyw/Thelephora terrestris/JacquelineYY22 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) :Tkyw
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tkyw/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * 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? No

Lead evaluation :
You didn't give your artivle a leading section. Since Lead can give your audiences a overall look of the fungus and summarize the critical points you want to illustrate in details later, it is good to have one. The Lead should be brief but involve a introdution sentence and the points you think are critical for your topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
I really like your both Physiology and Habitat and ecology parts in your article. They provided very specific information of these aspects of the fungus.

But I think you may could add more information in the History and taxonomy section, such as when did this fungus firstly found, who is the founder of this fungus, and what are the synonyms other than you mentioned... Also the information of antigen of this fungus (the virus) may not belong to the History and taxonomy section.

For Growth and Morphology part, it may be better if you could describe the characteristics of the shape of Thelephora Terrestris to let audiences have a more clear image since it is a specie of mushroom.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there aren't.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?  No, there aren't.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it doesn't.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content has a neutral position and no bias appeared inside the article. But since you use the first reference seven times, many contents may come from a same perspective, which may make your article not balanced enough.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most new contents have reliable secondary source to support, but few new content doesn't have.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?  Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No they doesn't work.

Sources and references evaluation
There are some problems in the references part which probably caused by coding error. So it is hard to let me match each of the reference you provided below to the above contents. But I still could find that all the references you listed should be realiable since they are either books or journey articles.

Another advice is that you should involve more inferences to provide diverse infromation related to Thelephora Terrestris .

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?  No it doesn't.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Mostly

Organization evaluation
Most of the contents under the Physiology section are highly related to its topic, but they lack well organization. If you could organize the order of them and assign them into different sublevel it will be much better to be understanded. For example, you may could aggregate the information about the stock, spores, hyphae and the life cycle. Then you can illustrate else like the smell, whether is edible or not etc...

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, it doesn't
 * 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
In the Wikipidia I find lots of pictures of Thelephora Terrestris which you have the right to use and add it into your article to enhance audience's understanding of the morphology and other topic such as the distrubtion so on.

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?
 * 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? Yes it does.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
You may could add more information about the growth of this fungus in detailed like the germination.

Also the whether there existed ecology relationship between Thelephora Terrestris and different kinds of trees inhabited by it.

More references should be used to enrich your content.

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
Overall speaking, this article did a good job to introduce Thelephora Terrestris from the aspects of history, growth, morphology, physiology, habit and distribution and thus give audience a basic understanding of this fungus. But there are some flaws could be improved, such as adding a Lead part to be a good introduction and lead audiences to more contents you addressed later; adding more information about the history of Thelephora Terrestris；organizing the detailed into sublevel group to illustate clearly ; using more references to complement more information like germination etc. and to increase the diversity of the content related to Thelephora Terrestris.