User:Sbrobbchavez/Corbicula fluminea/Camille.cain 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)
- Sbrobbchavez
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Some information added, but mostly not updated
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes and it describes the species well
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Somewhat, but some descriptions are not present in following sections
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes, such as reproduction and diet
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead does go on, could be shortened
Lead evaluation
[edit]Lead looks alright, but info mentioned in it is not present in the sections and it could be edited to be shorter.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- It is relevant, there could be more information on some other parts of the species
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- It does seem up to date
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There could be more information on the biology of the species and less of the impacts.
Content evaluation
[edit]Great discussion on the invasive species impacts and native behaviors, but could use more on the biology of the species that was mentioned in the lead.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- A lot of the article seems to focus on the invasive impacts of the species
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Not biased but extensive on the overall impacts of the species
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- See above comments
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No it does not
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]While it is great to discuss the negative impacts of an invasive species, there is more to the clam that just that.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- It seems to be, but there are no sources outlined
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Could be more thorough
- Are the sources current?
- Sources I could find seem current
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- No links available
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Off to a good start on sources, but don't forget to add them to the article so they can be viewed.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Content is easy to read
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Could not see any obvious errors
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Organized well
Organization evaluation
[edit]Good start to organization, hope there can be more subject sections added to improve it.
Images and Media (N/A)
[edit]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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]For New Articles Only (N/A)
[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?
- 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?
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?
- Still a work in progress, but is definitely more complete
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Information is organized well and is easy to understand, and the impacts of the species invasively is well put
- How can the content added be improved?
- More information on the species itself rather than the impacts, and don't forget to add sources into the article with reflist
Overall evaluation
[edit]Article is a good start, and could use some more information on the clam itself, even though it is good to understand the negative impacts it brings.