User:Dkilleen/User:Sasharoach/Bluey (long-lived dog)/Dkilleen Peer Review

General info
Sasharoach
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sasharoach/Bluey (long-lived dog)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Bluey (long-lived dog)

Lead

 * Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect new and added information.
 * Yes, the introduction concisely and clearly describes the articles information.
 * Yes, the lead includes descriptions for information further in the article.
 * No, all information is present, but there could be more information on how Bobbi (Blueys owner) was accused of swapping out the dog every few years.
 * The lead is a happy medium. I would say it doesn't need refining if there is more information added to the article, but if there is no new information going in, then it should be refined.

Content

 * Yes, all the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Yes, for the most part all of the added content seems to be up to date.
 * All information in the article belongs, but there could be an expansion on some of the topics.
 * No, the article does not deal with wikipedias equity gaps. it does not address topics about underrepresented populations or topics.

Topic and Balance

 * Yes, all content is neutral.
 * No, while reading this article I did not sense any biases.
 * No, this article does not have any viewpoints that are under or misrepresented.
 * No, there are no persuasive comments made throughout.

Sources and References

 * Yes, all content is backed up by a few different sources.
 * Yes, it accurately reflects the information and the peer did a good job with rewriting information in her own words.
 * Yes, I believe the sources used reflect several different pieces of information on this topic.
 * For the most part yes, the latest source used is from 2011. But all the other sources have been published within the last few years.
 * Yes, each source is written by a different author. I do not believe they are historically marginalized individuals.
 * During my search I found the same articles and I did not find any peer reviewed articles on the topic.
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization

 * The content is well written and easy to read. I would recommended breaking the lead into either one smaller section or two small sections.
 * I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The content is well organized, but could be broken down into more sections for better comprehension.

Images and Media

 * My peer did not add any new images or media.

Overall Impressions

 * Overall I think this article is off to a good start. It focuses on the main details of Blueys story and has many points of information that could be further explored. I think some expansion on information and breaking up some of the sections into small major sections would help improve this article. Many theres room for another picture or context box?