User:Beautimuss/Grasshopper mouse/Maryedaviss 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? 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? Concise

Lead evaluation
Lead could use more information and an overview of the information in the article.

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

Content evaluation
If you can find it, I think the article could benefit from a deeper description of what the mouse looks like- coloration, ear size, etc. I also feel as though the article is very heavy on feeding behavior, and could use some other info to balance it out.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone and balance is good. I know sources are limited, but try to incorporate more info from other authors.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
This article could use more sources. Also, not all of the information is cited. You have a link on most of the information, but there are parts where I don't know where the information came from. Remember- even if you have to cite the same source over and over, its better to do that then not cite it.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No

Organization evaluation
Some sections need to be organized better. You have the feeding section, but also have info on diet in the biology section. In addition, you have information on populations and living behavior in the feeding section. This should be moved elsewhere. I didn't see any spelling errors, and the information is good, but some sentences could be written to flow better or have better grammar.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not sure
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The feeding section is well developed and thorough.
 * How can the content added be improved? Need more information in other sections.

Overall evaluation
This article overall looks great. The feeding section in particular is very well developed and thorough. Other aspects of the article could use some attention- try to find other sources that focus on other things (morphology, behavior, phylogeny, etc). Overall, great work!