Image characteristics

1. Quality:  Is the image of high visual quality? Is it crisp, clear, and easy to visualize?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It’s somewhat unclear.

[    ] It’s out of focus or low in quality.

2. Subject: Is the subject of the image easily identified?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It should be more apparent.

[    ] It’s difficult to identify.

3. Concept: Does the concept depicted by the image fit within the discipline of ecology, botany or evolution?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] Partially.

[    ] It is more closely related to another discipline.

Comments on image:

Ecological / Botanical / Evolutionarycontext (metadata)

1. Title: Is the title accurate? It is descriptive enough to be helpful when someone searches for resources?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It needs better description or minor corrections.

[    ] It does not reflect the submission.

2. Biological Description: Is the significance of the figure, as related to the disciple of ecology, evolution or botany, clearly and accurately explained? Does it include common and scientific names of key species? Does the description provide any key information needed to interpret the image?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It needs better description or minor corrections.

[    ] Ecological significance is inaccurate or unclear. Common or scientific names are not included.

3. Accessible language: Are the title and description worded so that a non-specialist who is teaching a discipline focused course can understand them? Are any specialized terms defined?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] There are one or two undefined specialized terms.

[    ] There is significant use of jargon.

4. Core Concepts: Are the selected concepts appropriate for the resource? Are these the categories where you would expect to find the resource if you were browsing?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] One concept should be changed.

[    ] These categories are not where I would expect to find this resource.

Comments on title, description, accessibility, and core concepts:

Pedagogical context

1. Audience level: Is the image appropriate for the intended education level(s)?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] Somewhat. It would be useful for some students at this level(s).

[    ] It’s inappropriate for students at this education level(s).

2. Pedagogical description: Does the pedagogical description clearly explain how the image can be used effectively in the classroom?

Note: this is optional information.

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It needs more detail or some edits for clarity.

[    ] Classroom use is inadequately described or very unclear.

Comments on audience level and pedagogical description:

Other information

1. Key taxa: Are the common and scientific names of all key taxa included in sufficient detail? Are they accurate, to your knowledge?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] Requires more detail or minor taxonomic corrections.

[    ] Names are not included, are inaccurate, or are vague.

2. Geographic and temporal description: Are the time and place described in sufficient detail for educational use?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It needs more detail or some edits for clarity.

[    ] Time and location are insufficiently described.

Comments on key taxa, geographical and temporal description:

Do you suggest any change to the keywords provided by the author?

Reviewer recommendation:

[    ] Accept.

          [    ]  Accept, pending revisions:

         [   ] major    [   ] minor     Image                       

         [   ] major    [   ] minor     Biological context

         [   ] major    [   ] minor     Pedagogical context

[    ] Reject.

General comments: