User:Coffeebeangirl/Crèche (zoology)/Bksy4312 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Coffeebeangirl


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coffeebeangirl/Crèche_(zoology)?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Crèche (zoology)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review of article Crèche (zoology) by user Bksy4312

Lead:

The lead section of the original article has definitely been improved and is reflective of the new article added by the student. The wording in the original article was a bit “choppy”, and the student elaborated on the barebones points presented. The introductory sentence is more clear and gives a precise definition of the term. The major sections of the article are mentioned in the lead section without going into too much detail. I do, however, think that if there is time for the student to add a bit more about the other species mentioned in the lead (such as penguins or other birds) in the main sections, this should be done because it is information mentioned in the lead that is not mentioned anywhere else. I think that the lead section is the perfect length and has the right amount of details. In the final draft, I personally would bold the term in the introductory sentence of the lead section to make it stand out.

Content:

All of the content added is relevant to the topic. Expanding on the types of species that participate in this type of offspring care as described in the literature was beneficial. The original article just listed examples and did not include the amount of details that coffeebeangirl did, such as the types of crèches eiders have or the specific time that female lions form a crèche. I personally had never heard this term prior to reading the article, and I feel as though I really understand it after reading, which is definitely a good sign for others who will read it once it is published. Looking through the dates of the sources, they appeared to be up to date. There is one article that is slightly older (1988), however it is from an established, peer-reviewed journal, so the information appears to be reliable. There was a gap in Wikipedia regarding this academic topic, therefore this was a great selection to make it more known to the public

Tone and Balance:

This topic is not controversial and is unlikely to contain bias, and is therefore presented neutrally by the student. All of the viewpoints and sections are equally represented within the article, however, as I mentioned before, there were species introduced in the lead that could be expanded upon in the body, so this could be more balanced by adding sections to focus on one of these species.

Sources and References:

I clicked on the 3 available links and they all worked. I looked up the journals that these came from as well and confirmed that they were scholarly and peer-reviewed. For the source by Pollard (2009) there was no link provided so I could not check on this. When I looked up the title it appears that this is a dissertation, which Wikipedia says to use caution with and check that it has gone through things such as peer-review, heavy referencing, supervision by professionals, etc. When I skimmed through this, it did appear that it was heavily cited and was similar to a review, and the person writing it specializes in biology, which is relevant to this topic. The student should also double check this as well. When looking into the sources, the added content does line up with what is written in the referenced citations and is reflective of the current literature. As stated before, the sources are fairly current. I believe that more in-text citations should follow the sentences to back up the information added. This is particularly the case in the last section. Even if it all came from the same source (2), I would still cite this after each sentence because it is unclear if the information has a source, and the reader should not have to infer that it does on their own. When talking about percentages especially, there should be an in-text citation that follows. Additionally, I think a wider variety of sources should be used. Different sources of information and the inclusion of multiple authors would ensure reliability and keep the article well-balanced.

Organization:

I believe the content is vey well-written and uses strong language that is scientific, but also understandable to a general reader. I did not come across any grammatical or spelling errors. In regard to organization, I am wondering if the entire article is going to be replaced by the one in the students draft, or if the information regarding reptiles, for instance, will still be included. If the student is planning to keep the reptile section I would recommend that they create a subsection for reptiles and add more to what is already there, since there is only one sentence in the Wikipedia article currently. This would be a good way to add additional sources from scholarly literature as I previously suggested. Also, for the final draft I would consider adding more wikilinks to some of the terms used (if there is a wiki page created for them). For instance, some to look at could be “eider” and “incubate”.

Images and Media:

The images and captions added were a lovely addition to the article. Adding one image per section aided in understanding and was visually appealing. The images came from the Wikimedia Commons and adhere to the copyright guidelines.

Overall Impressions:

The added content greatly improved the overall quality of the article; it is definitely more complete. The inclusion of images, concise wording, and examples were strong points of this article. With the addition of more citations and sources, this article is well on its way to being a great contribution to Wikipedia.