User:Gnmahon18/Wildlife conservation/MillyA1116 Peer Review

General info
Gnmahon18
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gnmahon18/Wildlife conservation - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Wildlife conservation - Wikipedia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - No. Only two sections of the article were edited. The Lead was not one of them.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - The Lead was not changed.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - The Lead was not changed. The original Lead summarizes the article well and covers the main points.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - The Lead was not changed.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The Lead was not changed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - The content added to the climate change section is relevant, but much of the paragraph about Tik Tok is not necessary.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Much of the content about Tik Tok is not needed.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - It does represent the underrepresented topic of Tik Tok and the wildlife trade.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - The content about Tik Tok sounds biased, as if the writing is meant to point out the flaws in the normalization of the wildlife trade.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - Yes. The content about Tik Tok is not neutral. It sounds more like criticism.
 * 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? - Yes. The passage about Tik Tok should be written more neutrally.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - There is only one source used for the new information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - Somewhat. Much of what is written in the edits seems to be the author's opinion.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - No.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - Yes, better sources could have been used.
 * 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 about Tik Tok could be more clear and concise. The content in the climate change section is written well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There are grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - The content is well organized in the paragraphs that were edited.

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


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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - More sections of the article should be edited in order for the content to improve the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The content adds new viewpoints to the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? - The content should have more references and should not be biased towards any perspective.