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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added to the article. It is the same as before.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence describes the article's topic and where the Status dog comes from, but it could be more concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It includes a bit of what was added because they talk about things related to each other, but I think there could be another sentence or two about the importance of breeding in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the four types of dogs that were placed in the Lead should be elaborated in another section/heading below the Lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, and but there are details about the types of dogs that could be moved into its own section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the information is all relevant to the topic that was written.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Seeing from the source that it has been added from, it is from 2011, which could be deemed as recent enough to be "up-to-date".
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there should be content about what came about for the Dangerous Dog Act and Guard Dog Act to be placed, or if there was a precedent to those acts being placed on. But other than that, there could be more elaboration in sections, maybe something about significant news articles on Status dogs. It would be good to hear what other nations think about status dogs as well, not only the UK.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the added content is neutral and states information on the subject while not pushing towards any side or bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, most information given are straight from laws or objective information on the dog.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think there should be a viewpoint on the origin of the law or the overall view of Status dogs before and after the Act was placed.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, but I could see how the viewpoints that are not shown could leave audiences with their own conclusions.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the information is backed up by an extensive research paper.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, it is a very thorough source.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, it was published in 2011.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, there are not many links, but the links that are there do work. There is no link for the source that was added to the article though.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is well written and not to complex for the average reader.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, there are no grammatical of spelling errors within the Wikipedia page.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think the sections are too broad, and could arguably be a subsection of another big section. I personally think that the "Key Terms" section could be a bit more clear.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, it gave an example of a status dog.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the image has a concise and meaningful caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, adds a picture in the space that doesn't get in the way of information.

For New Articles Only
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?
 * It has improved a little, but there is a lot more space for information to be added to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strength of the content is that it is concise and easy to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content just needs more to fill in the gaps of what is not known about the background of Status dogs.