User:Crysgarcia/Spider monkey/Wholdenwood 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, the content was last edited in 2017
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It could be clearer, but it's not bad
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, but in bits and pieces
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's a bit wordy

==== Lead evaluation: The content provided in the Lead section is not presented with the best flow. A few of the conclusions don't lead into the next paragraph as well as appearing forced into the writing. It also has a few sections that could be revised to better support the claim(s) trying to be represented. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Relatively
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? From the Lead section discussing how/why they're susceptible to the malaria disease.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I guess Spider Monkeys are an underrepresented topic

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nope
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No viewpoints present in the article
 * 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? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? The oldest source published in August 1935, other than that yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes
 * Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I'd assume so
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not all of them work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Maybe a few punctuation errors
 * 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? Could have done a bit better in providing images to enhance understanding of some topics like they're hands.
 * Are images well-captioned? Could be better
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The information presented is well thought out and presented decently. The publisher may have encountered blocks in information like content gaps lacking sufficient evidence to support being presented in Wikipedia. As more research is conducted I'm confident the article will continue to be properly updated.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content had a fair amount of evidence to support size and intelligence claims, but lacked evidence supporting their potential of becoming extinct. A strength I thought was in the Anatomy & Physiology section mentioning the female spider monkeys clitoris.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe, more information on the human impact.