User:Jgjaynes/Ball python/Corymarkell 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? Jgjaynes
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Ball python

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is extremely relevant, this kind of information won't go out of date.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? You can pull information like this from sources dated closer to the research or further because you need statistics that cover years upon years for this topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All that belongs is there, nothing is over-board

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? All content is neutral, its just an in depth overview of a ball python
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The diet area could see a little expansion if anything at all had to be expanded
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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 does
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, all pictures show a process or a descriptive happening
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes, the link take you to confirmable pages

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved? I like it just the way it is, it really give insight on the ball python.