User:Cspark12998/Yellow-billed pintail/SDuncan123 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? Cspark12998
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cspark12998/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is no lead in the sandbox.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The topic is high altitude adaptations, but the addition discusses both high and low altitudes as well as the globin present in the birds.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there needs to be more explanation. The section that I would assume it goes under (Breeding) is very small and the content added does not flow with the current information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation
N/A

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? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
''There is a neutral tone to this addition. All information is backed with literature from credible sources.''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the articles are from Journals titled "PLOS Genetics" and "Molecular Biology and Evolution".
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The first article is thorough and even discusses other species. The second article is specific to the Andes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, 2015 and 2009.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, both articles have a large number of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
''All information is backed with literature from credible sources. The sources are relatively recent.''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No. There is more that needs to be added to be able to understand the new content.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No. Again, more explanation is necessary. If this information were added under the topic "Breeding", there would be no flow or transition with the already present content.

Organization evaluation
''The writer does not mention the topic under which the content will be placed. Additionally, the content needs to be rewritten to flow better.''

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes and no. The content added does improve the overall article, but it needs to be rewritten.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? This article is very small, so more information is essential.
 * How can the content added be improved? It needs to be rewritten to flow with the article.

Overall evaluation
Good information is presented, but it needs to be rewritten to flow with the already published article.