User:Epezzuto/Nucellar embryony/Cmlaplante 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? Epezzuto
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Epezzuto/sandbox

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

No lead because it is adding to a new article not creating a new one. The first sentences of the description part are good however it could be better used in a lead its you wanted to contribute to that part of the article. If not though, it is still a good lead for the description section.

Content

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? See below.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation

Both the second and third paragraph in the description section could be sub headings. The flow between the paragraphs is a bit disjointed because of the content that is being written about so that could be mitigated by creating additional subheadings.

I don't think you need to define things such as self incompatibility in the citrus section.

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

Try and avoid saying "avoiding meiosis and sexual reproduction". This creates a tone that does not seem particularly scholarly and also implies that avoidance is a decision. I would also avoid saying "however" and be more precise and say something along the lines of "There are exceptions and nuclear embryonic does not always occur with fertilized ovules, such as in Valencia Oranges..." Could make the tone more definitive vs speculative.

Sources and References

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? Mostly, however a lot from before the 2000's
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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

I would recommend evaluating what you think the most important subheadings should be and see if you want to change them to be more accessible for people that might just be skimming. (Not necessary and the subtitles are fine as they are, just a suggestion)

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

Is there a way that you can link the figure to the part of the text that it is relevant to? That could help with the understanding and connection to the article.

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

Good job. I mainly suggest changing the tone and being more concise. This could mean removing the "however" and "for example" and "another". There are other ways of structuring the sentences that could be more concise but still get the point across in a way that is less speculative sounding.