User:Trj150/Bosea lupini/Obri98 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? Trj150
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Bosea lupini

Lead
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?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise, and does not include any unnecessary information.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic although, I think the "Species" section could be renamed. Since this article is about the specific species, B. lupini, instead of being about the whole genus, I think this section could instead be called "Related Species". The section on the etymology would be more clear if you specified which part of the name originates from plants, and which specific plant it was originally isolated from. '''I fixed the "Species" section to "Related Species". I also added more information into the "Etymology" section to be more concise about what the origins were.'''

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
The content is neutral and unbiased.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are appropriate and credible. Including footnotes to reference the different species instead of the parenthetical citation would be helpful. I added footnotes into the sections to show exactly where my sources came from.

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
There are some grammatical errors, but the content is organized well. Some of the sections don't have information yet, but once they do, the information will be in a good order. '''I believe I fixed the grammatical errors. I also have added all information.'''

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
There are no images, but thats not a problem. I didn't attempt to add any media, due to copyright issues.

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 article is concise, and includes several good sources. There are a few grammatical mistakes. There are some sections that aren't finished, but the ones that are done have appropriate, concise, and unbiased contributions.