User talk:Such0051/Iron Springs Bog SNA
Peer Review[edit]
The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added (flora and fauna). The lead has a concise and clear introductory sentence describing the topic. The lead should include brief descriptions of the new topics added (flora and fauna). The lead includes some information not present in the article such as tourism. The content/sources added and source are up-to-date, current, and relevant to the topic. The source added is relevant, and the link works. There is missing content for flora, fauna, and cycling topics. It is neutral and unbiased. There is a lot of information not backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The content reflects the sources. There could be more sources; it does not accurately represent all available literature on the subject. Notability is something important to keep in mind. The journal articles are a great source for information. It is clear, concise, and easy to read. There are no grammar errors. The content is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. There could be images added to enhance the understanding of the topic. There are many links to other articles to make it more discoverable. The content added has improved the quality of the article, but it is incomplete. You could add information about the flora, fauna, cycling, research, chemistry, etc. to ensure completeness. The new sections provide a good subject for information about this topic. The article follows patterns of other articles with headings, references, links, lead, body, etc. Bohne086 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit]
Lead
Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead nicely introduces rare flora and fauna found at the site and introduces that research is done there it could introduce the ecology section a bit more though.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes this is quite good
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes its missing the ecology section though and the research part is only lightly alluded too.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no not that I can tell
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? nice and concise I would just add a bit more on the research as an intro and I would talk a little more about the ecology. Content
Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes I think so at least
Is the content added up-to-date? yes the sources added are relatively recent
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think so
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? not necessarily but some addressing of the indigenous communities who are native to the area is important.
Is the content added neutral? yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? I would recommend adding information about the native communities of this area.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no
Sourcing is quite good and is full of reliable literature. the links seem to work well.
It is well organized grammar and spelling are correct and organizational layout looks nice.
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
The images are laid out well and are captioned well as far as I know they are adhering to the copyright rules.
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes the content is very helpful and in depth
What are the strengths of the content added? the research section is one of its strengths I really like the detail added while still remaining general enough for a broad audience.
How can the content added be improved? adding a bit more context to the lead would make what things are in the article a bit clearer Caffeinatedmicrobe (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit]
Lead
The Lead has a very nice first sentence to describe the article. The lead is concise and contains all of the information that pertains to the article. The sources are all properly cited and belong where they are.
Content
The content added connects to the original article, and provides a gain of information on the science and natural area. This isn't described in the original article, but is definitely something to add with it being a important piece of research.
Tone and Balance
The tone of the article is passive and is unbiased. The facts of the article are stated clearly and are not overreaching. The content is described in a way that is easy to understand and described the facts of the page.
Sources and References
The sources used are all primary sources that are reliable to cite. The sources are relevant to the topic and provide information that is current. The citations are in proper order, and the links to the sites are working.
Organization
The content added is well written and doesn't contain any errors. The writing is concise and provides the facts of the article.
Images and Media
The one image added does not load in so it might need to be tweaked
Overall Impressions
The addition is a necessary part of the original article and is well written. The sources are useful and provide references to connect to the content. Sima0063 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit]
Lead: updated to reflect additional content. Detailed and concise.
Content: Extensive information on the ecology of the area, along with relevant biogeochemical research done in the SNA.
Addresses topics related to first nations people, who are historically underrepresented.
Tone is neutral.
Sources are more than adequate.
Organization is clear and headers are helpful.
Images and Media: Engaging images of relevant flora and fauna are provided adjacent to relevant sections.
Overall: Content of the article has been significantly improved, especially in relation to past research done in the area. No additional content seems necessary. Gros04 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)