User:Jthornhill16/Synurbization/Kab055mun 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? 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?
 * 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 very well. All of the content is present in the article and is concise and not overly detailed. The first sentence Cleary explains what the article is about. The lead also does mention the two main sections of the article. There is no information in the lead that is not in the article. Overall the lead is very well-developed and easy to read. This lead is much better and more detailed than the lead that was already present in the article.

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
All of the content is very relevant to the topic and it is up to date as far as I can tell. Once thing that might want to be added is an example of a species that has adaptive to an urban setting. Maybe a section discussing what an animals habitat was like and what it is like now thanks to Synurbization. Also maybe expend on the consequences, although it is not part of the behaviour it is a aspect of the topic. Other then that the information in the article is well research and suits to topic very well.

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
This article does not contain any view points or hypothesis that could persuade a reader.

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
This article has lots of sources, they seem to be thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources all seem to be current as far as I can tell. The links work just fine.

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 very well written. It is easy to read, concise and organized well. However, maybe add subheadings under the changes in behaviour section. I think that would make the article even easier to read and help a reader find what they are looking for faster. There were no grammatical or spelling errors as far as I could tell. Overall the article is well organized and easy to read.

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 images added defiantly enhance the article. The old version was very boring to look at it is more interesting with the addition of images. The images added are also well captioned and adhere to the copyright regulations. They are also added to appropriate sections.

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?

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
Overall the content added has greatly improved the article. It was not much of an article before and it has become much more developed. A strength of the content added is that all of the information is backed up be reliable sources and there is a lot of information that was added. It is now a way better article and was interesting to read.