User:Tursiopsaduncus/Anemophily/Pinguicula02 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) Tursiopsaduncus
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Tursiopsaduncus/Anemophily

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 does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead also mentions anemophily among conifers, although it needs more in the article. Its classification of conifers as hardwoods also seems to be incorrect since conifers are softwoods. Since cereal crops includes rice, corn etc., it may be redundant to list all the crops. Overall, the lead is concise and describes the article's major sections.

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 added is relevant to the topic and is overall up to date. As stated above, it could elaborate more on pollination in conifers as well as cereal crops. A section on how anemophily affects agriculture may also be added.

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 added content is neutral and shows no apparent bias. Although the user has already expanded upon the Allergies section, it still seems to be relatively short compared to the other section and can be further expanded.

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
All new content is backed up by a secondary source, although some sources do not have dates and authors. More scientific papers can be used to reflect the available literature on the topic. One of the sources used seems to be based upon the other two sources, therefore it may be a good idea to include more sources from a more diverse spectrum of ideas and authors.

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 overall well written and concise, there are a few sentences that can be improved so that they are easier to read. More sections can be included to separate the major points of the article.

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
No images were added but there were images in the original article.

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?

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 added content has improved the overall quality of the article and made it more complete. The content added helped elaborate upon underrepresented sections of the article and also introduced new important topics to the article. The content added can improve by using scientific papers as sources instead of only websites to increase the reliability of the information and make sure it is up to date. The content can also include more sections to split up the major points of the article.