User:John.waswill/Flying and gliding animals/KyleMadden24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

John.waswill


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:John.waswill/Flying and gliding animals
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Flying and gliding animals

Evaluate the drafted changes
(I'm assuming the parts that are boldened are what was added to the original article, if I was wrong I apologize.)

The lead seems fine for the edits made as they have fit their edits into paragraphs and sections that already existed. That way they have kept from adding anything not mentioned in the lead. The lead itself had already been sharpened into just the basic important general information about the topics and sections so to me it doesn't look like it needs any real changes.

Of the content added I saw nothing that seemed too out of place, while technically some of the information such as the sensitivity of many gliding or parachuting mammals to human disturbances could be seen as potentially extra information. I think it still fits in well enough and provides more background information on the animals so I would say it's fine to keep it. As far as the information being up to date, each source they added and drew information from are sources from less than 20 years ago so given the topic I would say the information is plenty recent to be considered reliable. There really isn't any kind of equity gap this kind of topic can cover since it's focused on animal physiology. (I'm not entirely sure how much content in total we need to add, but I think if possible adding a little more of your own content to the second paragraph or to the mammals section wouldn't hurt.)

The tone is certainly neutral since there isn't too much of a side one is able to take when talking about just the physiology of animals. The only thing that I saw that could be arguably close is the mention of human effects on the mammals but even that was stated as fact and not in bias so it stays along the guidelines of a neutral tone.

The sources are all recent and look to be from articles or books which are reliable. A wide variety of perspectives don't really make so much of a difference in studying animal physiology like this, what is more important is studying multiple species of animals in different areas rather than just studying the same species in one area for all your data and information. The sources found do look at different animal species in different parts of the world and as such are useful in this type of wiki article.

As far as the organization goes I would say it flows well with the rest of the information in the paper. They did a good job of adding in their information in a natural sounding way that makes it sound like it belongs rather than just shoe horned in. They also did a decent job of maintaining the overall look and layout the article already had while still fleshing out some of the smaller sections.

They didn't add any specific images, but they did add a few links to other pages on Wikipedia that when you hold your cursor over them it shows a captioned picture of certain animals they mentioned as well as can link you to the page for the animal in the picture. Since the pictures were already on established Wikipedia pages it's reasonable to assume they meet all of Wikipedia's requirements for use.

Overall I think they made a worthwhile addition to the article already up on Wikipedia and did so in a well organized manner within the Wikipedia guidelines. The only thing I can really say which might not even be necessary, is adding a little more of what you found to the article just in case you haven't met the amount required by the project yet.