User:15jlittle/Aquatic rat/Beautimuss 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? (provide username): 15jlittle
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Aquatic rat

Lead

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

Lead has been doing a very good job at filling in information about this species.

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? no

Content evaluation

So far, the content is good and everything is relevant to this species.

Tone and Balance

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

The information added seems to be supported by evidence as well as proper secondary resources.

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? yes
• 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? 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

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

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

No images added

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? 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.

Overall impressions

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

Overall, the article is well written and off to a really good start.