User:Caroruguita/Animal sanctuary/Annaalbuquerque123 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)
 * Caroruguita
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Animal sanctuary

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead has been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and does not consist of any extra information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it adds valuable information to the article on the topic of animal sanctuaries.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the resources are very recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, all the content is relevant and insightful.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, there is no bias information added by my peer.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, none of the claims mentioned in the article promote a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the section that my peer added to the article was well detailed.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, none of the information added is persuasive or bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The sources are not scholarly reviewed journals or books but they are well informed and very credible websites that educate about animal sanctuaries.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, there sources are from recent years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all the links added to the article work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the paragraph added is well-written and easy to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, as I read along I did not come across 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?
 * Yes, the content added by my peer is well structured and easy to understand.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * I am not sure if the pictures in the article were added by my peer.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * Absolutely, the article as a whole is relatively short, so the section added by my peer definitely makes it feel more whole.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is very informative and very well written.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * As I was reading, I felt like the word choice could have been more sophisticated. By no means was the word choice bias or persuasive. The word choice had a very neutral tone, however, I felt like certain words could have been swapped for more mature ones.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I really enjoyed reading the Animal Sanctuary article. It was well-written and very informative.