User:Gil6362/Big cat/Vanessa R Garcia 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Gil6362
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Big cat

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes the lead reflects the content and sections presented in the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead is clear about the definition of Big Cat and thus the subject of the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead introduces the main topics.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does not contain irrelevant information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the information pertains to the sections which pertain to the lead, and thus the article topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, much of the content is from within the last decade.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * If anything, this article may benefit from a section describing the general ecology of big cats; more of an explication about their niches and even the significance of big cats as symbols in art/history.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral and factual. Very objective tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, all of the claims are very straightforward and do not appear biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The last sentence in the Roaring section could probably use an elaboration and definitely a citation because it is not cited.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it is basic information not presented in any kind of persuasive or argumentative tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are some statements that lack a source of secondary information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there is a range of sources from different disciplines and on a range of topics as well.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of the sources are about 20 years old, but the bulk of them are from within the last decade.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there seem to sources written by people from various countries/cultures around the world.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked 5 random links that worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is very veryyy straightforward. This article was exceptionally easy to read.
 * 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, the content is broken into categories that are relevant the main subject.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are photos of some major cat species and also a phylogeny which is really helpful in understanding the relation of big cats to one another.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Some of the images of different species could use informative captions.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * This might be questionable, I don't see citations for the photos.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The layout is a little awkward.

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 article is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The new content adds depth where some sections were shallow before.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It can be expanded upon in the evolution section and conservation section still and perhaps a few more relevant sections added.