Jump to content

User:15jlittle/Aquatic rat/Beautimuss Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review

[edit]

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

[edit]
  • Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): 15jlittle
  • Link to draft you're reviewing: Aquatic rat

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

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

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Lead has been doing a very good job at filling in information about this species.

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
  • Is the content added up-to-date? yes
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

Content evaluation

[edit]

So far, the content is good and everything is relevant to this species.

Tone and Balance

[edit]

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

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

The information added seems to be supported by evidence as well as proper secondary resources.

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
  • Are the sources current? yes
  • Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Organization

[edit]

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? yes
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation

[edit]

The content is overall well. I would just suggest a grammatical change under the heading "Threats" where it says "vulnerable hurt by pollination" be changed to "vulnerably".

Images and Media

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media: N/A

  • 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

[edit]

No images added

For New Articles Only

[edit]

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? yes
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, and there is a good amount of sources being used.
  • 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? yes.
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? no.

New Article Evaluation

[edit]

Overall impressions

[edit]

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? Additional headings inputted is definitely a strength in this article. Also, it is all factual evidence being inputted into the article.
  • How can the content added be improved? I honestly believe the Lead has done a well job at editing this source. Maybe some more information would help make this article even better.

Overall evaluation

[edit]

Overall, the article is well written and off to a really good start.