User:AllenCamp28/Cat anatomy/Glitter25 Peer Review

General info
AllenCamp28, Vanessabear
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cat anatomy

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 lacks a general introductory paragraph. The lead consists of just one sentence, that talks about the anatomy origin name. The introduction should be further extended, it should include all the subtopics mentioned in the article, followed by an opening sentence. The lead should also include citations of the historical origin of the cat. There is not much to review if the leading paragraph just includes this one sentence.

Context:

Overall, it is safe to say that the general context provided in the wiki is relevant information. The information used is supported by numerous subtopics related to the main topic. For instance, the subtopics mention the main organs and their function for the cat, including supporting evidence to ensure relativity. Therefore this clarifies the accuracy and validity of the article that ultimately supported their main paper. In addition, the other context that is provided is related to the theme of the article. Most of the context included in the article is fairly recent but there is a handful of context that was supported by resources that date back to the 1900’s. Although, the year of the context shouldn't affect too much of the relevancy of this particular subject. In addition, the other context that is provided is related to the theme of the article.

Tone and Balance:

Since it mainly focuses on providing information about the anatomy of the cat species, its specific body arts, physiologies, and visuals can establish the content in the offered article appears to be generally neutral.

Sources and References:

I think the article would benefit to cross-reference the information with other reliable sources to guarantee correctness. The sources are relatively thorough and provide extensive and explicit details of the subtopics.

Although I have taken a look at the citations, the average year that the citations used in the article used, was roughly around the years 2008-2013. In summary, the article would definitely benefit in accuracy and relevance if newer information was cited. Adding peer-reviewed sources is also a recommendation I would make for this Wiki article. Oftentimes peer-reviewed work, thoroughly, tackles particular topics and the study behind them. Providing a scholarly point of view would make the article not only more resourceful but more interesting.

Organization:

The article's material is typically straightforward to read, well-written, and clear. It offers a thorough introduction to the subject, going through various aspects of desert greening, including benefits, techniques, and some particular projects. The subheadings provided a sufficient amount of information and were structured in a clear way, this feature may help readers find exactly what they're looking for. Minor grammatical errors were spotted, but nothing significant.

Images and Media:

This was one of the first things I noticed about the wiki article, was that it had very few visuals. This article has a total of 12 images. The article could benefit from more images and media content. Adding such features will not only give primary evidence to back up the abundance of information they've provided in their paragraphs but also help a broader range of readers understand what they're reading. Especially when it comes to anatomy, a visual is significantly important to know what the body they are talking about looks like. A cat's anatomy is different from an average humans, therefore visuals will show readers that clear difference. Having a picture in your head, of the information you've just interpreted, could make things much clearer. Although, the images that are provided to us have an appealing way. They show a clear representation with the paragraph they correspond with.

Overall:

The article offers a deeper comprehension of the cat anatomy and the various body parts associated with the anatomy.

Pros Exhibited in the article were: comprehensive information, an abundance of citations, and clear and appealing images.

Cons Exhibited were: lack of an introductory paragraph, relevancy of the citations that were included, and missing visuals of the subtopics (head and digestive system).

Overall, the context of the understanding was well written but considering what I have mentioned in the peer review may make this an even stronger piece.