User:Ziggy Marmot/Aquatic biomonitoring/CBrisbois Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Ziggy Marmot (Cara)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ziggy Marmot/Aquatic biomonitoring

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?

Lead evaluation

The lead has been updated but could be expanded to include a brief introduction to the sections below, such as the methods and variables considered. Nothing in the lead paragraph was originally cited so it may be good to add citations to those definitions and statements.

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?

Content evaluation

I like the addition of variables considered in aquatic biomonitoring, it seems relevant to include this information and it is written in a way that breaks it down nicely for non-scientific readers. The content sourced is up to date.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content is neutral and all the methods and variables receive proper weight of importance. Some of the variables could be expanded on for clarity for the general/non-scientific public. The Indicator Organisms info might go better within the Common Methods section or added to the lead paragraph as more background on aquatic organisms.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

For the new information, more in text citations would be good. I know the original article citations didn't transfer over. The sources don't have links associated but those can be added to the citation using a DOI or website link to where the article is viewed/downloadable from. I'm guessing you were planning to add more citations later anyway :)

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?

Organization evaluation

The added content is clear and flows well, with subheadings and paragraphs. I like the re-organization of combining the methods and assessment tools under one heading. The sub-headings for these could be shortened to be more precise.

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?

Images and media evaluation

Looking at the original article, it might be helpful to add some more images showing different methods or maybe even images showing examples of organisms studied in aquatic biomonitoring.

For New Articles Only

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?

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?

Overall evaluation

The re-organization and addition of variable specifics is great! I now know what aquatic biomonitoring is when I barely knew it existed before. Some more citations might be needed but the content added is well done overall. Are there any specific examples of places where aquatic biomonitoring is used or places where aquatic biomonitoring is especially important/significant?