User:15jlittle/Aquatic rat/Beautimuss Peer Review
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.