User:Vallion04/Vascular plant/Vanessa R Garcia Peer Review

Peer revieww
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? Vallion04
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Vascular plant

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, it doesn't seem to be.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence is very strong and informative about the topic of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead could use more information about the sections that are included in the article (sections 3- 3.3).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise. As stated above, it could be expanded just a bit to introduce what topics are further discussed in the body of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * There is a mix of up to date content and other content that is quite old. Perhaps there are more recent texts on basic plant physiology and characteristics that could be cited.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Additional information on the evolution of vascular plants and reproductive strategies may be useful.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No this article does not deal with one of the equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is successfully presented in a very neutral manner.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As stated above, evolution and reproductive strategies are slightly underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content is not biased or persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The last paragraph of the characteristics section needs citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The entire nutrient section only cites one source; perhaps this section could benefit from additional sources on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part, but there are a few sources that are over two decades old for which there are probably contemporary sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources seem to be lacking a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, links tested work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the content is concise and understandable.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few comma splices but the grammar is generally good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. But there could be additional sections to better represent the whole of the article topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, but there should be a diagram of some sort that shows examples of the vasculature of these plants.
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The added content highly improves the article because it is foundational information. The contributor chose relevant content that complements what was previously written.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * See above comments on adding sections. So far it's looking great!