User:Jreiney/Caatinga vesper mouse/Kim.kevin1 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? (Jreiney)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Caatinga vesper mouse

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Not enough information was added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the information was content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No it was straight to the point
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is not
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes it does
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I have checked few of the link and it worked

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? It does not.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?It is well organized and only one section. Probably because of not many information on that species.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media N/A because there was no images added


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned? T
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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? It does
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources are valid.
 * 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? I believe once that the information is complete, it will be more better. But, since there is not a lot of information, it is hard to tell.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It has habitat, karyotype, and area it lives.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by adding a picture if there is any that is founded.