User:Annasweetland/Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals/Krsmith09 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? annasweetland
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Annasweetland/sandbox?

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been updated to reflect new content, but the section being created is discussed already in the lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes the lead discusses the main sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * not that I saw, overall it provides a good introduction/summary into the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it is concise, but might be too concise, it could use more detail about the even smaller subsections.

Lead evaluation
Overall I think that the lead section worked well, and I think the only thing that could improve it would be more detail about some of the main sections throughout the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes, the added content is needed and works well
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * sort of- the sources are from 1999 and 2003, which is about 20 years ago now. But if there are no more current/recent studies done then yes this would be the most up-to-date and accurate.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * there are examples of related pairings and unrelated pairings, which is good
 * maybe something about males could be added- why is it uncommon for 2 males to parent together? is it possible for 2 males to parent together?
 * there is nothing that doesn't belong- it is all relevant information
 * 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 added is good, but I think the male aspect should be expanded upon. There is nothing that doesn't belong and overall I think it is a good addition so far.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes it seems to be
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I don't think there are
 * the word very was used in the first sentence, and that might be a word that could be left out or avoided. Saying just "common" in that first sentence may be better.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think that the male aspect should be addressed if possible, it is only discussing female-female parenting so it may be beneficial to break that up
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No- it never claims that homosexual parenting is better or worse

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall I think that the tone is good, just avoid using certain words that may lead to stronger implications (like very).

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes- all content has good sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough, they seem to be able to cover what is needed and give a good amount of information that benefits this page.
 * Are the sources current?
 * one is from 1999, but they are all from within the last 20 years, so I would say they are current enough
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Each author is different, but they are all biologists. Some are male and some are female and they are from different countries and different universities.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links are working!

Sources and references evaluation
Overall I think the sources you have chosen are good and they work well with the information presented.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well-written overall, it could definitely use a once over for you to reread on your own and decide how some of the sentences are flowing. It is easy to read though and makes a lot of sense, there are just some words I think that could be changed or added.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few areas where I would add a word or change something to make the flow work a little better. 2nd sentence "homosexual pairing can occur in different ways." The word "creatures" I find to be sort of random, and I think if you wrote the meadow vole instead it would not be repetitive. Homosexual pairing is used in the second sentence I referenced above, and I was unclear if that was supposed to be parenting or pairing.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * it is very well organized, it makes more sense than what is currently in this section of the article.

Organization evaluation
Just read it over a few times and make 1 or 2 minor edits and I think it will be greatly improved!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes! I think that the addition of this section will make a lot more sense and help to explain this section in greater detail.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths are there are good sources used, there are good facts and information with research and data to back it up, and this new section will also help readers to understand that there can be same sex parents.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Like I said in the last section, a little reread of the information and some minor edits will make it even better. I also think if it is possible the addition of a male-male parenting partner, or some example or reasoning why males do not take part in this.

Overall evaluation
Overall I think you have a really great starting point and have added enough information that it is significant to the article, and significant to the understanding of this topic as a whole.