User:Jthornhill16/Synurbization/Jpritch29 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? (provide username) Jthornhill16
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jthornhill16/New sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the header does reflect content added. However, the addition of the sentence" Synurbization can have an effect on animal behaviour", just as a concise, to the point sentence which related to the main section of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it gives a definition of synurbization.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, added content deals with the behavioural changes seen as consequences of synurbization.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, references are from 2006 or later.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I agree that consequences of Urban development does not necessarily belong in this project as it does not deal directly with behaviour.

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, there are no biases present.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there are not.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there is no attempted persuasion present.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the information is well referenced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, it seems like a broad representation of sources concerning this topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, all the sources are from 2006 or later.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No, the second, third and eighth links do not work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Overall the article is well written. There are some run-on sentences that could be divided into shorter sentences for smoother reading. Reading the article out loud may make it apparent where run-on sentences should be split up.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the header it says "limiter time" instead of "limited time"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Instead of using bullet points for each of the behavioural changes, perhaps small subjections within the larger section of "Changes in behaviour" would make the article easier to read, as it would appear more organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the image is well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes it does.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There is only one image present.

For New Articles Only
Not applicable.

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? The added content provided a more in depth overview of the behaviour changes caused by synurbization.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There are many examples of behavioural changes provided.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would suggest reading the article out loud to improve sentence structure.

Overall evaluation
Very good contribution overall. Information provided was thorough and well explained.