User:Beautimuss/Grasshopper mouse/Desensi ashley 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) Beautimuss
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Grasshopper mouse

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
 * 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? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Nowhere near enough detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is still much to be added to this article as it is focused on a genus and not a species.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. Needs many more citations for added information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, but very few added.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Somewhat. The biology section should be divided into distribution and then another section for biology. Also, the feeding section has information not related to feeding (population density info). Needs to have a link to evolutionary arms race (or red queen hypothesis) and leave it at that. Too much information about the back and forth with the arthropod and mouse.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, this sentence "It is a carnivorous rodent, dining on insects (such as grasshoppers), worms, spiders, centipedes, scorpions, snakes, and even other mice" should be plural to reflect that this is specific to all members of the genus.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? Not really. More sources and info needed on the actual genus.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not at all.
 * 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? No.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No. It needs far more information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Interesting information presented.
 * How can the content added be improved? Needs more information relevant to the genus and more citations.

Overall evaluation
Good start, but needs work!