User:Sgtrab01/Whale fall/Alithia93 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? Sgtrab01
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sgtrab01/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence concisely states the purpose of the article
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not entirely. It more gives an overview of the topic
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it acts more as an introduction overall than just a summary.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. All of the information added either expanded on information that had been given in the original article, or was information that was essential to the topic but hadn't been included in the original article.
• Is the content added up-to-date? As far as I can tell the information is up to date. All of the sources added are from within the last 20 years.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The section on variance in decomposition rates is crossed out in the sandbox. While I agree that having a whole section devoted to that topic is too much, I think it could be summarized or included somewhere else. Otherwise, it seems like a thorough overview of the topic.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Everything is stated in a very informational way, without strong bias towards one position or another
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Every topic is addressed to a similar extent.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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? They are on a variety of topics related to the subject, and all pulled from peer reviewed journals.
• Are the sources current? Yes, the oldest article added was from 2005.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yep.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Everything is stated in simple terms that are easy to understand, but explain the topic well.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were a few minor typos/grammatical errors. I think most of them are carried over from the original content.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media : Don't think they added any more photos.

• 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?

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? The additions to the article made it much easier to read, and provided some much needed context for the subject.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The largest edits were to the lead of the article and the ecology section. The lead explained the topic of the article much more thoroughly than the original lead did. Added sources also reinforced what was being stated in the article, and the new formatting structure made it a lot easier to read, and the ecology section better encompassed what was being explained than the previous heading did. The added ecology information also provided a good foundation to the more in depth explanation of the ecosystem stages that were explained without that context in the original article.
• How can the content added be improved? Overall the article is very well organized and written. However, I'm not sure why an entire section on variance in decomposition was cut out. Maybe this would be better placed somewhere in the ecology section?