User:Twoulfe/Hymenoepimecis argyraphaga/Kirstenmae99 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) Twoulfe
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Twoulfe/Hymenoepimecis argyraphaga

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is no lead paragraph updated yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is no lead paragraph updated yet.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is no lead paragraph updated yet.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There is no lead paragraph updated yet.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There is no lead paragraph updated yet.

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? I don't see a lead paragraph.

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? No.

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? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There are a couple of gramatical errors and words missing which makes it confusing to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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?

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? I believe the article is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is a lot of really good information being added.
 * How can the content added be improved? Proof reading this article would help the article to make more sense and seem more reliable.

Overall evaluation
This article is really good so far but does need some minor improvements. There are several words misspelled and words missing which makes it harder to figure out what the author is saying. There also needs to be a lead section added but overall the content added is good. I would also recommend explaining larger words or body parts so that any reader can understand what is being talked about.