User:Catrokakis/Dusky leaf monkey/Evabobeva Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Catrokakis and Tjonas1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Dusky leaf monkey
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead

 * The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added.
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence that is clear and concise, it also bolded the topic and included common names of the species talked about.
 * This lead does include a brief descrption of the article's major sections. I do suggest adding a sentence about the physical attributes of this species.
 * The lead includes information that is present in the rest of the article.
 * The lead is not overly detailed.

Content

 * The content added is relevant to the topic chosen.
 * The majority of the content is up-to-date. Only one is from 1996.
 * There is a good amount of detailed information in this article that is relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * The content has a neutral tone through out. I would change the wording of the second sentence in the status and conservation. I would take out the word 'notably' and say something along the lines of: "The outcome of anthropogenic land-use inside Southeast Asian forests has resulted in noticeable population losses and habitat jeopardy for the dusky leaf monkey." Because you already have 'Notably' in the beginning of your third sentence in that section.
 * There is no heavy bias in any section.
 * The content gives only the facts with peer reviewed sources to support.

Sources and References

 * All the content has been backed up by a secondary peer-reviewed source of information. In the 'Behaviour' section, just make sure to also cite the 2nd sentence.
 * The sources are thorough. They do reflect the available literature on this topic.
 * All sources are current except for the one from 1996. Try finding an article that is more current on the behaviour of the species in focus of their hostility.
 * The sources are written by a diverse sprectrum of authors.
 * The links that I clicked on worked.

Organization

 * The content is concise, easy to read, and clear.
 * There are minimal grammatical errors in this article but make sure you punctuate and add commas where necessary.
 * The content added is well-organized.

Images and Media

 * The images added were well used and are relavant to the topic.
 * There is an image that is missing a caption.
 * The gallery is a nice way to display the images as well as the sound of the species.

Overall impressions

 * I think that the content added has improved the overall quality of the article by putting in academic sources to support claims as well as bring in interesting information that was not talked about before in the original article.
 * The stregths of this article is the amount of peer reviewed academic sources that are able to support the facts about the species that you chose.
 * I only suggest a couple of editing:

- In 'Description' put a period at the end of J in G.J Burton.

- If you were able to hyperlink the species listed in the taxonomy.

- Hyperlink CITES.

- fix a couple of grammatical errors in each section.

Nice work!