User:Jpritch29/Tail wagging by dogs/JanuarytheCalico 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? Jpritch29
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jpritch29/Tail wagging by dogs

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added. It may be helpful to switch the first and second sentences/change them up a little bit as the topic of the article i.e tail wagging should ideally be defined in the introductory sentence. The importance of the topic is described well in the Lead. You may want to add some more info to elude to the major sections of the article. It is possible to move the part of the Lead discussing the hypotheses to a new section, but it is a matter of preference. Overall, the Lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The new content added is relevant to the topic. The content appears to be up to date based on the references used. All of the content belongs and is included in the appropriate sections.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral. There is no bias present and no attempts to persuade the audience.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
Excellent use of references. The references represent the literature well and are appropriately placed. The citations are current and the links do 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?

Organization evaluation
The content is well-written for the most part. There are some grammar and capitalization issues as well as run-on sentences. The content is well organized. For the final draft, be sure to use the proper "heading" tool to divide your sections as the bold font you are using does not create a new section properly.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The image is relevant (and adorable). No caption has been added. The image adheres to copyright regulations and is appropriately placed at the beginning of the article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This is not a new article.

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?

Overall evaluation
The article is more complete and includes relevant information. The information is well-organized and is easy to read, especially if the audience has no prior knowledge of the subject. I would work on some of the grammatical issues, add in hyperlinks for other Wikipedia articles, and switch up the Lead a little. It may be of interest to add a section describing how this behaviour differs across canine species. Great work :) JanuarytheCalico (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)