User:IAxolotlQuestions3/Wildlife disease/Cardinals34 Peer Review

General info
IAxolotlQuestions3
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:IAxolotlQuestions3/Wildlife disease
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Wildlife disease

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

The lead section is clear and informs readers on what wildlife diseases entail. I would suggest including the information that you are adding as well as an overview of what the article will specifically be looking at, basically highlighting each sub-heading of the article.

Content

I think what you are adding to the article is relevant and important information for the topic. Maybe to address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps you could find information about how the spreading of these wildlife diseases disproportionately affects those of lower socio-economic status.

Tone and Balance

The tone of this article stays neutral and I am not finding any attempts to convince the audience one way or the other.

Sources and References

All of the links to the references work and they are all peer-reviewed, reliable sources. The sources are relatively current, the oldest source is about 22 years old. Although, it provides crucial information to the article so I think it is relevant to keep.

Organization

The organization of this article is very digestible for readers, and I think it flows nicely from idea to idea. I did find a couple of small grammar errors. In the Wildlife Trade section, " as many organisms who do not typically encounter..." should be that do. And then in the Surveillance and Monitoring section, the "effected" should be "affected", and consider changing COVID to COVID-19 to be more precise.

Images and Media

I did not find any images or media in your draft, but the published article does have a couple that enhance the points of the article. I don't think any more need to be added, or else it may get too crowded.

Overall Impression

This article seems like it will be much more complete now once your information is included. I think these are very clear and concise sections, but it could be more impactful if you add more to direct transmissions of wildlife diseases. Possibly include when this could happen or go in depth about how. And I think there could also be more information added to the culling sub-section and what it entails.