User:Schu4379/Snow algae/Kloth017 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?

Schu4379, Mismosptk

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Schu4379/Snow algae
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Snow algae

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: I think that the lead does a good job at introducing the topic and providing a short background for the readers to understand. I think if I were to add anything I would include a brief description of the major sections that follow in the article.

Content: It seems that this article is new, or it had very little information to start and you added a majority of the content. I really like the sections you have, they are well written and relevant to the topic. The majority of the sources provided are up to date, which is good. I think I would change the header "Pigmentation" to "Morphology". I think that you could definitely expand on the "Role in Ecosystem" and "Effects on Snow Albedo and Climate Change" sections, adding more details maybe about their nutrient cycling capabilities, metabolism, and ecological effects. I would also consider adding a section about any underrepresented groups in the alpine and polar regions that may experience effects from this algae- that would help your page to address Wiki's equity gaps.

Tone & Balance: The overall tone of the article is neutral, there is no persuasion of ideas in any direction.

Sources & References: The sources provided are relevant to the content being addressed in the article. They are relatively recent (most are mid 2000s to current), and the links provided work. I would continue adding sources to expand on these article sections. I would also make sure that terms that are not as known (ex. carotenoids, astaxanthin, oxygenic photosynthesis) are linked to their respective wiki sites or an external site that would define them.

Organization: I think that this section is really strong. The article reads really well so far and the sections it is broken up into make sense with the flow of the article.

Images & Media: There is only one image provided on the wiki page, it is visually appealing and organized well on the page. I would re-write the caption, maybe including the location that this image was taken.

New Article: If this is entirely a new article, it is really well laid out and includes good section markers and has a nice flow. There is a pretty good reference sheet already, however I would continue to expand on sources to make sure there is a well-rounded article on the algae.

Overall: Overall I really like what is here. I think that the sections you have already described are well written, but maybe should be expanded on. I think that you could add subsections about metabolism and nutrient cycling underneath the role in ecosystem section. You can also expand on the climate change section by including a subsection about underrepresented groups that may be affected by this algae. If there are any negative biological/ecological effects I would also include those in a subsection. Lastly, I would make sure that the lead contains a sentence or two about the following sections in the article. Great job so far!!