User:Ziggy Marmot/Aquatic biomonitoring/FelixMH60 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? Ziggy Marmot
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Aquatic biomonitoring

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
Clear intro that leads into the article. It's a nice balance throughout. The organization makes sense and has a smooth flow. Each section added ties back to the relation of aquatic monitoring.

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
I can understand this without having a huge scientific background and I get the importance of it. Addition of the variables considered are great. It goes into greater detail on what is required in aquatic biomonitoring.

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
Neutral. I don't get the sense that I am being swayed.

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
I saw the question for multiple authors. Manual input? I went to your page. A fix for your copy and paste issue with pictures and the reference section. From the original article, if you hit the edit button first, then copy all. From there you should be able to go over to your sandbox and paste. It will take everything. I tested it and it allowed me to take the pictures and reference section. It may help with your future citations that you'll add.

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
Well organized. I like the addition of content section. It makes it very clear what you are covering.

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
I saw the comment about the picture - it may be the same as the reference section comment. Images would be great for this article! Maybe not from the study but a general view from how it's done - different methods perhaps? A conceptual model?

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
Wonderful additions! I had no idea what this was and it was nice to learn about it, the flow allowed me to understand a broad view that slowly went into more specific. Are there limitations to the methods used?