User:Clairebriar/Comparative cognition/SpookyIsland Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Peer review of user Clairebriar by user SpookyIsland


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clairebriar/Comparative_cognition?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Comparative cognition

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead section has not been updated to reflect the extensive amounts of new content added to the article. However, this can be easily accounted for by adding a few sentences stating the key contributors to comparative cognition and a brief description of their corresponding work. Furthermore, a sentence or two outlining the “model organisms” section of the body should be added to the lead section as well.

In terms of content, I think both the “key contributors” and “model organisms” sections added to the article are relevant to the topic. However, most of the added “key contributors” are not modern examples; maybe, you could add a section that represents modern-day contributors to comparative cognition. Then, there would be a balance between past and present views on comparative cognition! Also, it may be beneficial to add more WikiLinks throughout your article. That way, readers can explore your topic more in-depth by relating it to other Wikipedia articles! For example, WikiLink “Corvids” because some readers may not know what they are.

The tone of the content is neutral, and there is no evidence of bias towards a particular position. The edited work is objective and simply states factual information that does not overrepresent/underrepresent one specific viewpoint.

The sources utilized in the article are reliable sources of information, such as research articles from accredited, peer-reviewed journals, such as The Psychological Review: Series of Monograph Supplements and the International Journal of Primatology. In addition, the sources’ information aligns with the information that was provided in the edited article. However, I think other sources could be used to fortify certain aspects of the article. For example, regarding the “key contributors” section, you may be able to find some modern-day review articles that analyze the work of these contributors and provide new interpretations. Also, regarding the “model organisms” section, it may be of interest to fortify the individual sections with more references; for example, there is only one reference used for both the “corvids” and “rodents” sections. Although there are only twelve references, the sources are written by a diverse array of authors from various journals. However, none of the links work for any of the citations, and many of them lack a link or a DOI, to begin with. Consider adding these components into your citations; without them, it is difficult for readers to find the source you are trying to refer to. Lastly, I think you may be citing incorrectly. From my knowledge, the citation goes after the sentence. For example, “I am peer-reviewing your article.[1]” not “I am peer-reviewing your article[1].”. But I could be wrong.

Regarding organization, the article is beautifully written and highly concise and easy to read. After thoroughly reading the article, I could not find any grammatical errors or spelling mistakes! In addition, the main points of the article are very well organized and flow very smoothly. The two new sections, “key contributors” and “model organisms,” provide sufficient information and help explain the topic of comparative cognition through historical experiments and the animals that comprise these experiments!

The images included within the article are utilized perfectly and enhance the understanding of their associated topic. In addition, I think the photos are well-captioned, as they explain the image concisely but effectively. Lastly, the images are laid out appealingly, and they adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. They are great additions!

To conclude, I think the added content has vastly improved the overall quality of the article. The article is more complete and successfully gives insight into the topic of comparative cognition. The content added has strengths in many areas, including but not limited to conciseness, readability, and informativity. However, I think the addition of more citations and more WikiLinks would improve an already near-perfect edit!