User:Aishafozdar/Population control/AzzamJahangiri Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Aishafozdar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aishafozdar/Population_control?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Population control

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

The lead section of the article is quite concise and only consists of two sentences. Upon reviewing the lead section, it is evident that the introductory sentence clearly and briefly describes the topic of the article. I believe the lead section does a good job of providing a basic introduction to what population control is in simple terms. As for areas of improvement, the lead section could be upgraded to reflect the newly added contents and thus incorporate brief descriptions of the other major sections of the article. For example, the lead section could include a brief statement on the factors leading to population control and the methods for doing so. This way, the article will feel more cohesive and organized for any reader. Overall, I believe the lead section is focused and effective for introducing the topic of the article as it briefly defines population control without adding irrelevant material.

Content

After reviewing the newly added content, it is clear that it is relevant to the topic. The editor added information that provides details on certain aspects of the topic. For example, the editor added a section that details the methods used for population control. This information is useful because it provides relevant insight into how populations of animals are controlled by humans. Also, the content is relatively up to date but could be improved with some newer sources. Newer sources will help give a contemporary sense of how population control is looked at and maybe explore some newer ethical issues surrounding it. The content is relevant to the topic, so it does belong in the article, however, a lot more information can definitely be added in order to improve it. Overall, the added content was relevant and useful but could be improved further by addressing some of the guiding questions.

Tone and Balance

The added content was neutral in tone and did not appear to be heavily inflicted by bias. There were no serious claims made in the article, nor were there any moments where the editor took on a particular stance. The information that was added was objective in nature and contributed to the overall educational value of the article. Furthermore, there was no particular viewpoint that was expressed by the editor as the added content served the purpose of giving additional details on the topic. Since there were no particular viewpoints or stances being taken, the editor did not attempt to persuade the reader towards any political or ethical viewpoint. Even when the editor spoke about any ethical implications of population control, they did so in a neutral and objective manner. This ensured that the overall article remained informative and balanced in tone. Overall, I felt as though there weren't many issues regarding the tone and balance of the edited article.

Sources and References

The added content was backed up by reliable sources as most of the material came from peer-reviewed journal entries and books. The information came from reputable biological sources and reflected the original source material. I would say that the sources are thorough due to the fact that the editor has taken information from biological sources (journals and books) that are focused on conservation biology. This shows that the editor has added content that reflects the available literature related to the topic. As for areas of improvement, the overall content could have been improved by adding information from newer sources. Also, most of the links also worked apart from one that required access to a book. This could be a problem as others may not be able to view the source material without having to purchase it. The editor could have further improved the article by incorporating sources written by a diverse set of authors including those that were historically marginalized.