User:Alanis Rubi Rosario/Wildlife/NRC2020UPRC 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? (provide username)  Alanis Rubi Rosario 
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Alanis Rubi Rosario/Wildlife

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
This page of my classmate’s draft does not have a lead section probably because my classmate is still working on her sandbox draft. To help her continue her draft, I would say that a lead section should reflect the content of the article, have information relevant to the article, and be concise. Seeing the lead of the main article it needs improving by making it more neutral. The information provided in the lead of the main article is present in the rest of the sections. However, the content of the lead is not concise (from my perspective).

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
The content of the main article is relevant to the topic. However, there is always extra information that could help keep improving the article. The content of an article should be updated at certain times which is part of improving the article.

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 neutrality of the principal article could be improved. They are some viewpoints that are overrepresented in the content of some sections of the article. Some parts of the official article refer to: “While others have argued…” and “Most scientists agree…”. Those phrases indicate that the article is not written from a neutral point of view.

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
There are sections in the article that does not include available information for the reader to review. In the section “Media” there is a page that does not exist. In the sections “Habitat destruction and fragmentation”, “Impact of introduced species”, and “Chains of extinction” there are no citations (including the section “Tourism”).

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
In the section “Overkill” there are grammar and spelling errors (same as the sections “Suffering” and “Tourism”).

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
There are images in the main article “Wildlife”. The images help to give more visual information about the wildlife (which helps to understand the topic).

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not applicable.

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 content added to the article can be improved by working on the information my classmate found and delivering it in the best way possible. The content, in general, is good because it has information, relevant details, and a good structure. What I can say is that it could be improved by adding sections relevant to the topic (maybe) and by improving the neutrality of the article to have a well-improved article and strong editing.

Here is my peer review. Thank you for your attention and keep improving! 😊