User:AnimalBehaviorStudent/Dog aggression/Amhwarren 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? AnimalBehaviourStudent
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AnimalBehaviorStudent/Dog aggression

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 is concise but doesnt mention the types of dog aggression or that there can be treatments for it. Otherwise, the lead is concise and not overly detailed. As a suggestion for the writing of the lead, in the second sentence it says "Aggression expressed by dogs is considered to be normal behaviour and their behaviour is..." saying behaviour twice so close to each other feel redundant so maybe you could switch it to "Aggression expressed by dogs is considered to be normal behaviour which is...".

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?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant and 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
This article has potential to be non-neutral because of the worlds bias towards certain dogs but you did a good job at remaining neutral. I understand that you were going to add more images, but one suggestion I will make on that is to show images of more different types of dogs displaying aggression as the German Sheppard pictured is a commonly known dog to be aggressive when it can be in almost all dogs so it would be more neutral to show a range of dogs than just one well known dog,

Another suggestion is regarding the sentence "Therefore, it is important to recognize that aggressive dogs display aggressive behaviour as a result of fear or an anxiety disorder" this sentence makes it seem like this is the single cause of dog aggression, therefore is non-biased. I would recommend changing this to illustrate that it's just one of the causes.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The whole article is well and thoroughly cited, where the references have a wide range up to publications from 2018 and the links for the references work.

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 content is well organized. The topics flow but there are some grammatical errors that make the sentences hard to understand. I will reference a few with my suggestions:

In the dominance aggression section it might be helpful to define what "spoiling" a dog means. Under defensive aggression it's written "the dogs" which may be better as something like "The dogs who are prone to displaying aggressive behaviour" because it's not all dogs.

In the beginning of the causes section it says "Many dogs that suffer from anxiety disorder and cannot determine the difference between a legitimate threat and a false threat" this would be more cohesive as "Many dogs that suffer from anxiety disorders cannot determine the difference between a legitimate threat and a false threat"

It might be a good idea to define gonadectomy in the research section to help readers better understand.

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
The images are great to add to the article, are not distracting and follow the copyright regulations. I like the image of the dog brain but I think the caption does not explain it well, maybe mention the examples in your paragraph, showing where on the diagram an injury could occur that would affect behaviour or better specifying that it could be mental illnesses. The caption on the image of the dog in the laboratory is somewhat confusing also because it is not likely that an owner would go to a lab to manage the behaviour of the dog so I don't think that this is what the image is actually of. I'm looking forward to seeing what other images you add!

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
Overall the article is well written and detailed in describing causes, influences and suggestions on dealing with dog aggression. My main suggestions are fixing minor grammatical errors, editing the slightly biased sentences and altering picture captions. Overall great job!