User:Williamkearney98/River ecosystem/Anonymous Algae 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

 * I am reviewing "river ecosystem" by Williamkearney98 and others
 * User:Williamkearney98/River ecosystem

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
I am assuming this group is keeping the lead from the original article, and the original article's lead is satisfactory. The only thing missing might be a brief description of the major sections, an potentially some information from our first lecture in class.

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 up to date, something that could be added if the writers feel it's necessary, is information on the watershed, what is it, what does it include, maybe bed morphology, and roughness, and how those things relate to the creatures that live there, because i am not sure if all of that was covered in the original article. This article is difficult because there is so much information to cover in one Wikipedia page.

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 added is neutral, none of it seems to be leaning toward a particular position. It doesn't persuade the reader in favor of a position. Everything that was covered, was covered evenly.

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 links I checked worked, the sources reflected the topics discussed. I would include more citations and try to find a few more sources, we are allowed to cite our textbook, if that helps.

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
Content is organized, broken down into relevant sections, and well written. I did not notice any grammar or spelling errors.

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 are available in the sandbox, though perhaps they are planning on keeping the images from the original article, however, I would include and image of a food web and an image of a food chain for those sections.

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
I think the content added did improve the overall article, I would include some examples of creatures that are specific to ricer ecosystems like moss and algae in the producer section, and zooplankton and other specific invertebrate examples in the consumer section. I think there are a few more subjects that we learned about in class, that could be covered if there is time left to add those, but it's such a huge topic with lots of material to cover, it's understandable if not everything is talked about.