User:Datotter007/International parrot trade/Otterreef Peer Review

General info
Datotter007
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Datotter007/International parrot trade
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * International parrot trade

Lead
First sentence is strong and concise, and the incorporation of the old article is well done. The addition of information on CITES control adds different background information that was not present before, which appropriately summarizes added information.

The second part of old part of the lead was kept, but feels like it could be moved to a different part of the article. This is the part that starts with "Approximately 2,600 of the more than..." and ends with "...75% of these belonged to the Psittaciforme order." The statistics add unnecessary bulk to the introduction, and it does not summarize any part of the article. This paragraph could fit better in the "international trade" subsection, since it relates to how parrots are specifically affected by this trade. If moved, a more concise summary of this information could be added back into the introduction.

Content
New content is presented well and incorporated effectively into already existing article. The content in this article gives a great overview on different aspects of the parrot pet trade, giving enough information without being too bulky.

Tone and Balance
Tone in the article is professional and factual, and each section has an appropriate amount of information.

Sources and References
Seven sources were added, which nicely encompasses the information added. All sources seem to be peer-reviewed.

When sources are referenced in a Wikipedia article, the in-text citation should be added as a superscript (used by going to the tool bar above, clicking "citations," then clicking "re-use" and selecting the article that was referenced). Currently it seems like in-text citations were done in APA format.

When looking through the resources for the added information, it seems like not every source is cited within the article. This could be incorrect, but just double check to make sure that the seven articles added are all cited at some point in the article.

Organization
Sections flow well into each other, with subsections expanding appropriately on each section. Most content is within the correct sections.

Images and Media
Graphs and photos already in existing article are good visual aids.

Overall Impressions
Lead introduces more information that was added in the article body while still keeping the introduction concise. New lead is better than the original, and incorporation of new information with the old lead is well done. The second paragraph of the introduction could be moved into a more fitting section, as mentioned previously.

International Trade has great information on the pet trade, easing the reader into the article by telling them information that is relevant and easy to understand. The use of statistics gives good perspective into the reality of how birds are impacted.

Top importing and exporting countries gives good insight into how multiple countries are involved in this trade. I have some confusion on how it says most parrots come from "mostly Guyana, Suriname and Argentina," but only Argentina is listed in the top bird exporting list. Is this because of a distinction between parrot and bird exporting in the pet trade? The importing list mentions parrot importing, but the exporting list mentions bird importing.

Legal rules and restrictions regarding Psittacidae trade is a section that is definitely needed, sharing specific conservation action being done against the parrot pet trade. If there are any more conservation acts similar to the ones already listed, they could definitely be added. It depends if more information is out there or not.

Trade in the United States is from the original article, and gives a good overview on how parrot trade is an issue because of catching parrots domestically. This section includes direct quotes, which are allowed on Wikipedia (I think), but it disrupts the flow and feels like it could be reworded to exclude the direct quotes.

Illegal Trade Within Mexico is a very detailed section overviewing how the parrot trade has evolved in the country of Mexico. This gives great insight into real-life implications for this bird trade. The link for UMA page is broken because there is not Wikipedia page on it, so the link does not need to be there. The last paragraph of the section gives information on how PROFEPA combats trade (starting with "PROFEPA attempts to combat..." and ending with "...2% of the total annual Psittacine trade"). This could be moved into "solutions to illegal trade" section to help the article flow better.

Solutions To Illegal Trade is a section that uses studies to look at possible solutions for the parrot pet trade, including solutions that do not just include enforcing the fact parrot trade is illegal. This section is very useful in giving knowledge about conservation ideas, and is inspiring to the reader to show that there are solutions. The only confusing part of this section are the first two sentences. How is the pet trade a low risk, high reward crime? How does limited knowledge make intervention problematic? These sentences are from the original article, but they add some confusion.

Illegal market is a good section to have in this article, because it gives insight into the actual dollar amounts and market for these birds. This section, however, is short. It could be possible to bulk this section up a bit with more information, depending on what additional research there is on the topic of the market value of parrots.

I wonder if it would it be possible to add a section about more countries? One goal that was mentioned and achieved is finding sources on a global scale. I wonder if it is possible to add information from these sources into a new section labeled "Worldwide Trading" or something similar? Just to highlight more countries involved and comparing how things are in the United States and Mexico to other countries. This is purely a suggestion, the article flows well enough without it and there is already an international trade section.

Overall this article is really well done, with new ideas and information being seamlessly incorporated with the already existing article. There are plenty of sections, all relevant and furthering the understanding of the article. The wording is easy to understand, yet professional. It seems like goals for this project were met, with the addition of a more global context. Besides minor, optional changes, there is nothing drastic that needs to be "fixed" about this article. Great job!