User:CooperOfford/Squirrel monkey/MichKayla S Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

CooperOfford


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:CooperOfford/Squirrel monkey


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Squirrel monkey

Evaluate the drafted changes
I'm going to start off saying great job! This is a very thorough article, and its really good for 'just' a draft!

Lead

-Yes! Cooper has a thorough section on additions for the Lead based on the new content that is added.
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Content

-Yes, the content is all applicable to the squirrel monkey, expanding and improving upon sections that currently exist in the current squirrel monkey article but do need the expansion that you added. - Not all of your sources are as recent as they could be. 3/5 sources are from 1986-88, one is from 2005 and the most recent one is from 2020. While I'm sure the information is good, there could be more recent studies referenced to ensure nothing incorrect is added if something was learned in the last 30 odd years. - I think this actually fills in gaps from the current article so I don't think anything specific is missing.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

-The content is neutral - I don't think anything was over or under presented.
 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Sources and References

- All new content is connected to a secondary source, however I think that there could be a few more sources
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

-The sources aren't very current, with 3 being from the late 80s, one from early 2000s, and the most up to date is from 2020 which is a good and very current source. -These appear to all be peer reviewed articles or journals so I don't think different types of sources are an issue.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are there better sources   available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Organization

-Feels well written and clear to me. -I did not notice any grammar or spelling errors. But I am personally bad at spelling and grammar as well, so always do a final re read.
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

-Definitely very well organized. There are clearly separate sections about a few different physiological processes. The flow of the sections makes sense to me.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Overall impressions

-These additions do improve the quality of the article, filling in gaps that currently exist in the main page. - I think the cleanness/clarity of the added information is the best part of your additions, given that wikipedia is all about making information accessible I think you do a great job at that!
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Additional Questions

-There are 5 sources, all from peer review articles/journals -Definitely relates to the course, covering a few physiological processes of the squirrel monkey. - I personally don't know what else you could add, maybe find additional sources that provide some of the same/similar information as your other sources to have more support/evidence to the additions you plan to make.
 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources?
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material?
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further?