User:Itbag/Status dog/Erica-Schroeder 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

 * Itbag
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Itbag/Status dog

Lead evaluation
The Lead was the only section in the original article and it has not been altered in the updated version. The Lead however, does a good job at introducing and concisely describing the topic to an audience that may not have previous knowledge about what a status dog is. I think the Lead could be further developed by making it more clear what the following sections are. Also, the article seems to be missing a contents box that outlines the article.

Content evaluation
The breeding section definitely adds value to the existing article and I think the key terms section could also add equal value if it was more clearly connected to the topic more. Are weapon dogs and dangerous dogs types of status dogs or are they different, but similar to status dogs? I also think a history section would be beneficial to the article. In the key terms section where there is a quote from another piece of literature, I am not sure if that adheres to Wiki plagiarism regulations so I think it would be worth making sure this can be included.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral throughout the article. There seems to be no bias towards a particular position in relation to the topic.

Sources and references evaluation
The links to the sources work and are recently published sources. Most of the sources were fairly short which could be from a lack of information on this specific topic. I think it would be worth checking to see of there are any academic journals that discuss status dogs to enhance the quality of sources.

Organization evaluation
The sections that have been added are ordered in a logical way starting with the key terms section. There doesn't appear to be any spelling or grammatical errors. If a history section is added, I think that would be best placed under the breeding section as many Wiki articles that include a history section place them at the end of the article.

Images and media evaluation
The image added is a good addition to the article and well placed. It is also well captioned and I believe it was an image from Wiki so it adheres to regulations. I don't think it is necessary to include more images.

Overall evaluation
The article has been improved from its original state. The tone, media, and sections added bring great value to the original article. I think relating the key terms section to the topic more, adding a history sections, and making sure the quote in the key terms sections is regulation would improve the article further.