User:Crysgarcia/Spider monkey/Gil6362 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? Crysgarcia
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Spider monkey

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? Yes, it has a general overview on the species background.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes there is a contents section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, there is information on the endangerment of the species.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, except in Mesoamerican section it was random having that in but lacked information to make it seem relevant or very important.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? More information on Mesoamerican culture and tie it in better rather than just jumping into that, if unable to find more information then possibly take it out. Being an endangered species was mentioned so maybe add a section into that going into depth on what caused them to be endangered, how they were affected by deforestation then, and possibly mentioning a rescue group that focuses on their endangerment.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The mesoamerican culture and endangerment. I feel like maybe a little more information on how their location may affect their diet can help add a little more substance to that subtopic.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Unable to tell what was added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, there is a few sources that wasn't really related to the thing being cited.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is clear to read and understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I've read.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Images and media evaluation
I suggest that you add a phylogenetic tree for the taxonomy section. It's a little more appealing and easier to see the relationship rather than bullet points!

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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I feel like there can be more citations in the behavior section. I know its paraphrased but at least state were the information is coming from may help with the reader trusting it more when we can see the source of the information.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is good so far, I feel like there may be some substance lacking. It's a general overview but I feel like it may need a little more detail.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved? Possible add a better image for the anatomy of the spider monkey that shows the features that are being discussed.