User:GuySmiley03/Species translocation/Rhin0771 Peer Review

General info
GuySmiley03
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:GuySmiley03/Species translocation - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Species translocation - Wikipedia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I like how you added more defining content to the lead as to what translocation is, but I think it could have been done by adding to the already existing lead instead of completely scrapping it. The original lead mentions a bit about plants/soil and conveys the point that translocation isn't only with animals. To people in the sciences or specifically educated on the topic the distinction isn't needed, but since this is a wiki article that mostly the general public is reading, I think that distinction is important. When introducing what population restoration and conservation introduction are in the lead, it should be cited.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence depicts the article well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does a good job of describing the two main points of species translocation but doesn't highlight the major sections outside of what was added or edited.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * NA
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead does a good job of expressing a lot of information and remaining concise and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I think the editor did a really in-depth job of explaining the content added in a way people without a scientific background can understand.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, many of the sources seem to be from recent years some even being 2023.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * If I'm understanding correctly the editor plans on deleting the "Types" section and replacing it with what's written in the sandbox. By doing so it gets rid a section on "Restocking". I think this portion could be incorporated into the edited version and has some value to it. It gives an example of translocation on a smaller scale that regular people might have heard of, since it doesn't always have to be with endangered megafauna ex) stocking trout. It gives something people can relate to and might break up the super science-based jargon to emphasize a point.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * NA

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is neutral and non-biased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * NA
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The edited version of the article is very animal based and doesn't have many plant examples or shout outs.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * NA

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, everything is cited with either an IUCN or peer reviewed publication.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they all seem to reference professional organizations such as the IUCN or are a peer reviewed source from various journals.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, even a few from 2023.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, very broad authors and varying journal publications.
 * 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.)
 * No, all the good sources are being used. Mostly peer reviewed sources.
 * 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?
 * Yes, everything flows very nicely!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * NA
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I really liked how you reorganized the "Types" section into the two main points and broke it up into sub-sections there to elaborate on. It makes a lot of sense and I think it actually helps the reader distinguish between the two main points even better than before.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * NA
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Na

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * NA
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * NA
 * 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?
 * NA
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * NA

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 has improved the overall quality of the article by a lot. The article seems more professional and well rounded, whereas before it had a lot of information floating around that needed to be organized, restated, or taken out of the article due to its relevance status.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Very well written and comprehendible. A lot of information presented in a very approachable way. It's not scary for a reader not from the science world.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The article is very well done overall, but I think there are some points the deleted potions make that are important that should either be kept or rewritten into the new article. Especially incorporating more plants into the examples. More media could be added to give visual representation. Other small changes that can be beneficial would be adding in links to other Wikipedia articles when available. For example, adding a link to the words like "wildlife conservation" or "biodiversity".