User:Ptero-ADH/Isoetes/Colgateplants 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? Ptero-ADH (Aidan)
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ptero-ADH/Isoetes
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it gives a description of reproduction in Isoetes
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not really
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is only one other section, so that is introduced
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is pretty detailed
Lead evaluation : good, but I would suggest maybe switching the last paragraph of your work with the first one. The "description" section is very detailed and I feel like you could turn most of it into a section of its own or just change some sentences around. But also I know you are adding onto a preexisting article so maybe I am wrong and you don't need to do that but I just think it would flow a little better
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it all pertains to Isoetes or lycophytes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, this covers the reproduction of the species well
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, I don't think so but this article is severely underdeveloped
Content evaluation: good
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]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: good, neutral
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]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, from my current state of knowledge
- Are the sources current? Fairly current, some are older. This could be something to work on
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
Sources and references evaluation: good
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes overall. It is split into clear sections. It seems unfinished as of right now so just make sure it doesn't end with a comma. Also make sure you don't have any lengthy transitions, like "This fact cannot be overlooked" could be eliminated.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the published Wiki article the authors italicized Isoetes so this is something that you could do as well
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes
Organization evaluation: good, just make sure it's concise
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the reproductive cycle is very good
- Are images well-captioned? Yes
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes
Images and media evaluation: good
[edit]For New Articles Only
[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 -- n/a, not a new article
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]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? There was previously no information about the reproduction of these plants on Wikipedia despite the amount of knowledge available in academic papers, so this is very important to increase the availability of this information for future researchers.
- How can the content added be improved? At times it reads a bit like an essay rather than a straightforward paragraph so just make sure you get rid of any unnecessary transitions