User:Caroruguita/Animal sanctuary/Danielagordillo 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? (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? 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the article should talk more about shelter vs sanctuary since it is mentioned in the Lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think is consice

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some content is missing, but all the content belong to the article.

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 but is stating what a sanctuary is and in a great way teaching people how is beneficial to animals

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * 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? Yes, is clear and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it would be great if it has more section in the future because is a topic very important.

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? Yes.
 * 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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It only has 2 references, I think it could have more to reflect more available literature that exist.
 * 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? Yes.
 * 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? Yes is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Give more information to readers.
 * How can the content added be improved? Adding more content and more sources

Overall evaluation
The article have a great beginning, I know that when the article is done will be perfect. The information is very clear and concise like the picture that was a added. More sources should be added so the reader could have more background information. Nice work.