User:WildcatRed1/Cowpox/Mightychondrias 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? WildcatRed1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:WildcatRed1/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, information ranges from that of 2008-2015.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Maybe a citation for the last sentence.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not necessarily.

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. Almost all sentences have a citation and it is very consistent.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, ranging from 2008-2015.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Demographics on the scientists that wrote the sources are unknown.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

==== Sources and references evaluation: Overall good range of sources. Adequate amount of sources for the sentences provided and consistent citing for each sentence. Sources are up to date and they work when clicked. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Minor repetitiveness, but overall good.
 * 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 N/A


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. The article does not have anything in it about the structure and little about the taxonomy of Cowpox, which the student has provided.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Great organization, to the point and clear, added elements that the article was definitely in need of, good sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? Minor repetitiveness with the first few sentences, citation for last sentence and header might be nice, but overall a great addition to the article!

==== Overall evaluation: '''Great organization, to the point and clear, added elements that the article was definitely in need of, good sources. Minor repetitiveness with the first few sentences, citation for last sentence and a header might be nice, but overall a great addition to the article!''' ====