User:Marythemuffinlady/Aquatic biomonitoring/FreyaPortales97 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?

Marythemuffinlady

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Marythemuffinlady/Aquatic biomonitoring
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Aquatic biomonitoring

Evaluate the drafted changes

General review of draft:

Good: The information provided is perfectly on topic, using algae as a point of reference for bioindicators. Excellent points were made regarding the tolerance (of algae) to a number of parameters such as chemical pollutants, temperature, and heavy metal toxicity. Sources used appear to be peer reviewed and appropriate.

Suggestions: When referencing the photosystem II of algae, it may be helpful to reference a particular genus or species (or general type) of algae. I was confused as to whether or not the photosystem information was meant to tie into the diatom portion of your contribution. It also helps if you stick with a single type of reference for the photosystem, rather than saying "photosynthesis system", simply state photosystem II again (or whatever photosystem you are referencing in the moment). This will help keep your points concise and easy to understand. In terms of your bibliography, I could not access any of the sources through a provided link (though this may be an error on my part; still learning how to peruse through wiki). Lastly, I would make sure that your thoughts within one sentence are completed in that sentence; incomplete or sometimes confusing sentences may result from carrying a thought over into a new sentence without establishing (or re-establishing context).

Uncertain (but curious): Is it biased to directly state that certain pollutants have an effect on algal growth? Should you consider stating the potential correlation without making claims of influence? I do not know for sure if this would fall under a bias, or just a thorough observation, so I am not suggesting that this be removed. However, I would suggest asking our professor or a wiki staff member for possible guidance regarding potential bias.

Final thoughts: I think that your draft is well written, and the information is relevant to the assigned article. Great job!