User:Ilk12/Utah prairie dog/Cfs015 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

illk12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilk12/Utah_prairie_dog?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Utah prairie dog

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead-

The content has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. The lead's introductory sentence on the original article does not introduce all the content that is in the article. The original lead is too concise. The plans that my peer has to add to the lead look very good. They look like they will improve the lead to introduce all of the information. My only advice is that there is a lot of information that they are planning to add, so my peer should focus on making sure they can fit that information concisely.

Content-

It seems like most of the content in the original article is up to date. There is a a lot of opportunity to add more content to this article because it is missing a lot of information. It does not go into detail for any of its sections. It does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance-

All of the content in the original article is neutral. There is no attempt to persuade or take a certain view point, and the plans that my peer has in their draft all seem neutral as well.

Sources and References.

In the original article, most of the sources are up to date besides some from the 70s. All of the content accurately reflects what the sources say. There are many other sources that the article could use. For example, my peer found one. The source that my peer used is relevant and up to date, and they reflect the information well. The sources in the original article are not from a diverse spectrum of authors.

Organization:

The organization of the original article is very good. It is split into many different sections and the writing is very clear.

Images and Media-

There is only two images both of which are captioned and enhance understanding. Both are visually appealing and follow the copy right guidelines.

Overall Impressions-

I think that my peer is working in the right direction towards enhancing this article. In the original article, there is lots of opportunity for adding information and more sources.