User:Chrisreg509/COVID-19 impact on animals/Aalva450 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) Chrisreg509
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chrisreg509/COVID-19 impact on animals

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory sentence, but it gives a general view of the topic, but not the specific general view it should. For example, it specifies and only talks about COVID-19, but it never gives at least a brief view of how it is affecting animals.
 * 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? It is more so concise and straightforward, while it points out some interesting facts about the topic, I think that they should be added in the actual article because they just seem out of place and random.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, just more information should have been provided.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, I think they should have expanded more on what animals are susceptible to the coronaviruses and an explanation should have been given on how some animals such as dogs as that is what the author is claiming, do not get infected by the coronavirus since the author seems to contradict himself and should have scientific evidence to support and make the reader understand more. Not all readers will be able to understand if they do not have a background knowledge to the topic. Additionally, some information was out of context and unstructured as in all over the place (disorganized).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It seemed to just wanted to be informative and neutral, but at some points the opinion of the author indirectly would be influenced in the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, I think the author is a dog-owner/dog-lover so the information seemed biased as the author kept on pushing that dogs would not get the disease.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, the author contradicts himself saying that dogs cannot get infected by COVID-19, but yet says that dogs already have coronavirus within their system which is why they are vaccinated so they can be immune to one strain that inhabits only in dogs. This is what is under-presented in the article and should be explained in detail with the support of reliable, credible sources. Also, he mentioned animals in general, but focused more on dogs than anything, if anything he only mentioned one different animal which was that of a tiger.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I feel like the author aims to persuade people that dogs cannot get the coronavirus, especially the strain that we are currently facing on a worldly scale of COVID-19.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The article has great reliable and credible sources that had the potential to have created a phenomenal article but the sources weren't used to the maximum. For example, most of the sources were of the Central Disease Control or the CDC for short.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They were not used in detail and thoroughly, rather just for their generality and in some occasions some random details were supported.
 * 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? It could have been more enriched by using better word choice and sentence structure. There were a lot of fragments. Definitely, easy to read and straight to the point.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling errors, but there are grammatical errors such as fragments and use of sentences that weren't followed through.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, not at all. If this had more sections or at least went from a general point of view to then the specifics without any random information being added that is irrelevant in the placement, then it would have been executed in a beautiful way.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but some were out of context as they had nothing to do with the article and weren't spoken about in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? No, no captions at all.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They don't have a bad placement as that is what first caught my attention, but they could've been better placed along the side of the articles with captions to explain or pictures of animals that were spoken about as well as pictures of the microscopic view of the coronavirus (COVID-19) since this was discussed in detail, at least the appearance of this virus.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The sources
 * How can the content added be improved?