User:Yshibutani/Tortula muralis/Vic.ubc 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) Yshibutani
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Tortula muralis

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 is really direct and clear, and covers the content of the article without adding information that is not present in the article.

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?

Content evaluation
The content present is relevant and up to date, but there is a lot of data missing. Distribution, habitat, taxonomy, etc. would be valuable in expanding this article. What is presented also has a lot of jargon, and I think some terms could be defined or linked to provide clarity. This is definitely a good start, but more info is key to making this article great.

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
Overall the content balanced and neutral.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources appear to back up what is presented, but more would be helpful.

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
There is a lot of jargon in this article and I think it could be better explained or changed to make the article more accessible. I did not find any grammatical errors and I thought the content was well-organized. I think the general characteristics and distinguishing characteristics could be separated into different subsections.

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
The photo is really informative and visually appealing and adheres to copyright regulations.

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?

New Article Evaluation
I think the addition of a few more peer reviewed articles would be beneficial to expand the information and cement the already existing info. More up-to-date studies would be beneficial as well. It does follow the pattern of other articles with both flow and infoboxes. The links to other articles are helpful.

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 article is definitely more complete than it was originally, and it is concise and follows the patterns of other articles. It is neutral and well written, with proper structuring present. As stated above, the article could benefit from more accessible language and an expansion of the information and references. Overall a very good start to this article!