User:Arianacoletta/User:Imadoor98/sandbox1/RebeccaL2021 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)
 * RebeccaL2021
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Imadoor98/sandbox1

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 was concise and had a really great introductory sentence. I feel that it is missing a brief description of the history section, and a short sentence stating the founder and year the society began would be helpful. Good summaries for the rest of the article sections, one sentence is plenty and y'all did a good job keeping the tone neutral.

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
Content is all relevant and belongs, although I think that there should be some more up to date content. I also feel that the veterinary care should be mentioned a little more in the body since it was mentioned in the lead.

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
Content is very neutral and unbiased, you guys did a great job keeping out biases and I feel that all of the view points were properly represented.

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 links work, and for the most part current, all of your sources are solid and reliable. I feel that a few more sources would be helpful for the article, but I also understand how difficult finding reliable sources is when there just isn't a ton of information on the topic.

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
This is well written and concise. I understand it's a draft, so just take care of the questions in parenthesizes before you publish the article. All of the content is well organized by year, and it is an easy article to read.

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 no images, and I would suggest maybe adding a photo of the founder and the current logo, but finding copyright free images may prove difficult to find.

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
Your topic is notable, although it could use a few more sources and then add some infoboxes as needed.

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 you guys have done a really good job. Some more sources could be improved, but you have really kept a neutral tone and stuck closely with the facts.