User:Nsg1029/Palaemon paludosus/Ldw15 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Nsg1029

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nsg1029/Palaemon paludosus
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Palaemon paludosus

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead:

In your case, the lead was kept the same as the initial article. The lead is very concise and does not really give brief descriptions of the article's major sections, either existing or added, so this may be something to add.

Content:

The content added is relevant to the topic. The dates within your source are a bit outdated, so it may be good to double-check that this information is still accurate. There does not seem to be content missing or content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance:

The content added is neutral as you state only facts. There does not seem to be any bias.

Sources and References:

The new content is supported by the source provided, but citations should be added for the final draft. The source is thorough and reflects the cited peer-reviewed journal articles, although those articles aren't the most current. The link for the source does work.

Organization:

The content added is well-written, concise, and easy to understand. There are no spelling errors, but the first letter of sentences two and three should be capitalized. The heading of this section sums up the content well.

Images and Media:

No images were added, but there doesn't appear to be a need for this either.

Overall Impressions:

The content you added definitely improved the article, it is now more complete as it goes into more detail about the sexual reproduction that was mentioned previously in the existing article. The content could be improved by updating the lead to briefly mention information included in subsections, adding citations when appropriate, and maybe by going into a little more detail about their reproductive times. For example, the breeding season varies by temperature, but you could potentially elaborate using the information in the source to include which areas have seasonal breeding versus which areas have breeding year-round.