User:Emilygeorge06/Drumming (snipe)/Emw3181 Peer Review

Peer review By Emw3181
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Emilygeorge06
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Emilygeorge06/New sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead could use more general information about the topic based on further research.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead includes 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?
 * No, this could be worked into the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead could use more detail after completing more research on the topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, has good sub sections to break up information.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * More content under "Types of Snipes" needed, but other content is all relevant and belongs.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is well-written and easy to read and understand the overall topic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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?
 * Yes, the content added does improve the quality of the article and seems to be more complete when compared to original article. It is also more organized.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Organized well, easy to read and understand the topic in general and get a clear idea of what the behaviour is.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Perhaps under the section "Function" add more information about the function if possible.