User:Di Whitt/Azaras's capuchin/Catrokakis Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Di Whitt and Manu479


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Di%20Whitt/Azaras%27s_capuchin?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Azaras's capuchin

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review:

The lead of the article was not updated to reflect the changes made to the article. The original lead was concise and summarized the primate well. However, because there was a lot of new information added to this article, it would be useful to add a few sentences to summarize these new findings so that readers can anticipate what to read. Specifically, it would be useful to include a few sentences on conservation and endangerment.

There was a lot of relevant content that was added and the references are up to date. I can tell that effort was put into finding as much information as possible. There is an even distribution of information added for each topic. I also appreciate how the article remains neutral and is not biased. When reading the article, I do not feel persuaded to hold any opinions.

The sources used are up to date, reputable, and reflect the topic of the article. I believe that the best sources were used. After clicking a few links, they work, which is good.

Overall, the article is very organized. The headings and sub-headings used organizes the material nicely. In addition, I feel like the article is easy to understand, except for the evolution and taxonomy section (although this just may be because I am not familiar with many of the terms). However, there are some grammatical and minor sentence structure mistakes that could easily be fixed by reading over the article one or two times.

Overall:

I believe that the work that was put into the article improved the Wikipedia page by a lot. It is very impressive how much information you were able to add when there was barely anything written in the previous version. Specifically, I was very impressed with the information added on the characteristics and the ecology of the primate. I also enjoy how organized the article is. My one criticism would be that there are some noticeable grammatical and sentence structure errors that could be fixed by reviewing the article.