User:Dimondguan/Hainan black crested gibbon/Oac2113 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

 * Peer reviewing for Jerry Guan, username: Dimondguan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Dimondguan/sandbox

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

'''The lead has been slightly updated with a few new (interesting points). It is succinct, and it makes clear the topic to be discussed in the article. It doesn't describe the sections of the article, and doing so may improve it. Overall, I think it looks good.'''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

'''I do worry that the content is not very current given the year the references were published and the year some of the in-text information came from. Added content is relevant, and I especially like the phylogenetic section and the extra information about the male songs'''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

'''The article edits were descriptive and unbiased not persuasive. Promotion of specific agendas or viewpoints was not observed.'''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

==== The major sections of the article make sense and content in each section makes sense being there. Grammatically, there is some polishing to do (but english is not Jerry's only language so errors are understandable). The biggest advice I would give is make sure to use "have" instead of has. But the content added is relevant and concise. ====

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


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

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

==== I would say that the content added is pretty minor. The article before editing was outdated, but complete. I think in order for added content to really be useful it should be from more current sources (last few years). But I will say the content added is relevant and interesting. ====