User:Hmc442/Vacuum activity/Ethologyisfun31 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? User:Hmc442
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hmc442/Vacuum Activity

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It should include more information on the topic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does incorporate an introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? More information could be included to give insight on the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead doesn't include information that isn't present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The leading paragraph is a little too vague; needs more detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added appears to be relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There are no references included to determine if the new content is recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content/sources could be added.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added doesn't have any bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims appear to be heavily biased toward a particular viewpoint.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No viewpoints appear to be overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added doesn't attempt to persuade an audience.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Sources needed to be added to support the additional content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not applicable.
 * Are the sources current? Not applicable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not applicable.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise; a little vague.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No apparent grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is very organized in comparison to before the edit. Very clear to follow.

Images and Media- Not applicable.
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?

For New Articles Only- Not applicable.
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? There was slight improvement of the overall quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths include the overall organization added.
 * How can the content added be improved? More detail is needed.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article has become more organized in regards to major section headings/material. Although, more information needs to be added.