User:Chromagrion/Bird extinction/Sharko2002 Peer Review

Lead: This section is a good introduction to the topic of bird extinction! It has a nice balance of not being too concise/detailed and not too broad either. I like that you included some statistics to inform the reader about the numbers side of extinction. I do think there should be some mention of the major sections of the article so that the reader knows what to expect if they just read this introduction section.

Content: The content added is definitely relevant to the article and shows that you researched very well to be able to contribute new thoughts to what was already there! The Causes section was up-to-date regarding what the major threats to birds are and the Notable Species section helped fill in gaps about each bird.

Tone and Balance: Even though this article mentions topics that could be considered sad, you did not display any bias positive or negative! The sections about human-caused extinction presented the information in a non-biased, factual way with sources to back up the information. It could be beneficial to add a paragraph in the Causes section that explains the WHY behind human practices that end up with birds dying. For example, talking about how the growing global population means infringing on bird habitat, but where else are people supposed to live? I think this article could benefit from showing the other side a bit more.

Sources and References: I couldn't tell which sources were already in the article and which ones you added, but most of them looked to be good. I saw that the majority were peer-reviewed articles and a couple were secondary sources. All of them reflected the content written in the article and were relevant to the topics. I would suggest making it clear which sources you personally added so that you get credit for them in the final assignment!

Organization: Your article is written in a very clear fashion with similar style throughout. I do not get the impression that multiple people wrote on it or collaborated - feels very cohesive! I also like the headings and way the article is broken up into sections. However, I think that the Causes section coud be broken up in a different way, either into a bulleted list or separate paragraphs. It just felt sort of jumbled together. I also think that the last sentence in the Natural section feels out of place and could be beefed up a bit. Grammatically, the majority of the article was great! There are just a couple of grammatical errors in the Disease section and also 1 or 2 in each of the bird sections in Notable Examples.

Images and Media: I don't think you added any photos so I have no notes there! But I do think it would be nice if there were pictures next to each bird in the Notable Examples section.

For New Articles Only: Does not apply.

Overall Impressions: Overall, I think you did a great job adding information in complete new sections and also in cleaning up the article as a whole! While there are some spots that could still be improved upon, the errors are not egregious and the article is quite well-written as a whole. I would recommend going through the article again and adding a couple sentences (or a paragraph!) to each section since the article itself is pretty short. But based on the work you added I think you did an awesome job and I definitely learned more about bird extinction today :)

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)