User:Ehong25/Headshaking/Meg Dillon8 Peer Review

Peer review
I am reviewing the draft of Ehong25. Here is the link to the original article Headshaking.

Lead

 * There did not seem to be much of a lead in the original article. The peer updated the lead and made a very clear opening paragraph outlining the behavior and sections of the article. The topic was very well defined and the elad was a great introduction to the rest of the article, with relevant content and detail at the appropriate level. It is well detailed but not excessive.

Content

 * The content added, was relevant, up to date and appropriate sources were used.

Tone and Balance

 * The tone was neutral and a wide variety of academic sources were used.

Sources and References
The links I checked worked and I really like how there were multiple sources used from Veterinary Medicine Journals. Overall, there was a broad and diverse number of sources.

Organization

 * The new content is very well written and organized. The original article lacked organization and was low on content. It was very clear and easy to follow your article draft and I found the multiple, short sub headings to be a major asset to the article. The information was neatly organized and there were many possible scenarios and categories examined. Your research was very thorough.

Images and Media

 * I really enjoyed the table in the article draft. That is a creative and interesting way to present information and maintain the interest of the reader. I would suggest maybe adding a picture/video of a horse performing the headshaking to enhance the learning experience for visual learners.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Overall, an excellent article draft! A large amount of neutral, unbiased content was added from a variety of sources. The draft was neatly organized with proper citations and easy to read. It was an appropriate level of diffculty for the average reader (not too hard/ not too easy). Very well done.