User:Haileylab/Muja (alligator)/Connor.new 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? Haileylab
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Muja (alligator)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead describes what the article will talk about. It reflects the history of the alligator, Muja.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead describes what Muja is and the history that the article will talk about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it describes who Muja is and gives an idea of the history which it will further talk about in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, most information is covered in the article from the history of Muja, the zoo, and his health.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all content added relates to the history and health of Mjua the alligator.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, currently his mate did pass in 2020 is the most recent news from Muja.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, not that I notice all content belongs because it is tied to Muja in some way.
 * 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 is pretty random to me. I definitely find it interesting that this is the oldest known living alligator. That could be historically underrepresented however it does not make that large of an impact historically speaking.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I know it is hard to find information on this alligator but just having a history of it underrepresents it. I feel like there should be more content added to this even thought it is difficult to find. Overall, with the information at hand this is well formed and gives an understanding of what Muja is and the historical significance to it.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


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

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image of Muja but it is all that is needed to give an accurate look at what Muja is. It is also well captioned and cited.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This article is new and for the content discoverable and information available it was really well written and formed. There are sources to bac kthe independent subject which is good. Althought the biggest takeaway is that there isn't a ton on information on the alligator besides its history and health. This is on the right track to be a notability article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, this was well written and formatted. There is definitely more content to be added and explored. However, for how this was written it was sourced well and written very nicely and organized perfectly.