User:Haileylab/Muja (alligator)/Superduperdog Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Haileylab
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Muja (alligator)

It seems as though I cannot see what was drafted by this student as it is not in the Sandbox Draft section.

Lead evaluation:
Not sure if the lead reflects what the student added to this article.

Content evaluation:
The content is almost all relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. This article only includes the background info on this alligator, the history, and references.

Tone and balance evaluation:
Based on the provided content for this article, the content on the page is neutral. There are no heavily placed viewpoints or bias toward a particular position regarding the Muja (alligator). It seems as though the viewpoints are not either underrepresented or overrepresented.

Sources and references evaluation:
All the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information listed in their references section of the article. The sources are current and they reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources seem to have been written by a diverse spectrum of authors such as news sources, history links, and Zoo resources. All the links work.

Organization evaluation:
Yes, the content is pretty much concise, clear, and easy to read. The content doesn't contain any grammatical or spelling errors. Yes, the content is well-organized and broken down into clear sections that reflect the major points of the topic. I would advise the student to add more sections that answer more questions about the alligator.

Images and media evaluation:
The article includes one image that enhances the understanding of the topic. It is well-captioned that includes the species, sex, hatched, and known for categories. It seems as though the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. They are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Overall evaluation:
The content, from what I can tell not knowing what this student added or not, seems to have a clear understanding of the topic and is pretty much complete. Some of the strengths include the references and the topics covered. I would add more categories to this article that makes it more complete.