User:Msiscar/Ectocarpus siliculosus/Gnbuss12 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?

Msiscar, Enfried15

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Msiscar/Ectocarpus siliculosus
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Ectocarpus siliculosus

Evaluate the drafted changes

Overall Impression:

I think you've done a great job in comparison to where you started especially given the limited resources four our stub articles. I think that the article could improve from some reworking of the sentences and elaborating on some of your ideas.

Lead:

I think the information about the brown alga being one of the first genomes to be sequenced it really interesting and is a great way to open your article.

See if you can elaborate on that more. Maybe explain what the genome was important for, how it contributed to science (you could probably make this its own section if you find some good information).

Content/Tone:

I think the information included in your working draft is good but the phrasing needs to be worked on. For example the a few of the sentences in the third paragraph were incomplete "Plants tufted, often only one to a few cm tall, but in exceptional cases up to 20 cm".I think overall the article could benefit from putting things into your own words.

Also, explaining some of the terms that you use to describe the brown alga would be helpful. For example, some of the terms that tripped me up were in the second paragraph "The alga is unbranched and filamentous; it forms soft beards on larger plants.." You could try to hyperlink to other wikipedia articles as well if they exist and you don't want to describe all of those terms.

Sources:

I know that sources are probably limited for your species, but I think that adding things like where your species can be found and its specific habitat may help beef up your article a little bit.

Organization:

The flow of your information is great! You can try to put your information into different sections in order to make the organization even clearer. For example, add headings for the different sections like one for the information about the genome sequencing.

Images:

See if you can add some real images of the brown alga. You can try to search through wikipedia's images but I know its pretty hard to add new images.