User:Kab055mun/Anting (bird activity)/Kensarah1234 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? Kab055mun
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kab055mun/Anting (bird activity)

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 reflects what content is in the article. The added sentence stating what order of birds most often displays the behaviour of "anting" is a useful piece of information, as there are many orders. It does include an introductory sentence that is clear and defines the topic very well, it also includes a short description of the sections that are discussed. The information mentioned in the lead is later mentioned again in greater detail. Overall the lead is well written and not overly detailed.

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 content that was added was relevant to the topic. The addition of the different types of functions were very interesting and easy to read. Also, adding different sections explaining active and passive anting is a great addition as well. Majority of the sources is up to date, dating around early to recent 2000's. Two references were in the 60's and 70's but still contained relevant information. The information added fits well with the subject of the article.

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 added is neutral for the most part. In the section "Sensory self-stimulation" there is one sentence that says, "However, there is no definitive evidence that sensory self-stimulation is the purpose of anting in birds." This sentence could be taken as biased since it has no reference supporting that there is no definitive evidence. Other than this I believe that the content is neutral. The viewpoints are represented a fair amount. The "Feather grooming" is quite short but this may be due to not a lot of studies being done about this! The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in anyway, it presents the material in a fair and educational way.

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
In the introduction, or lead, of this article there are no references added until the second last sentence. In general more references should be added to many of the sections. The sources are thorough and from credible publishers. In the reference section though, there is the same source numbered different times. For example, the source titled "Why do birds practice anting?" is not listed as only reference 1, but also listed as 2,3,4,5,15,16,17, and 18. I think there was just an error in referencing which is an easy mix up! This is easy to fix. The sources are current with about 3 of them dating to 1966 to 1970. Many of the references are not links so I was not able to click them. However, the links that were available did 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 added is easy to read, clear, and very interesting. The information added is a great addition to the article! It expands on many topics that were only briefly mentioned in the original article. One sentence that could be fixed is the very first one in the section "Functions in molt". In this sentence I believe only a word or two can be added to make it more clear! Overall the grammar and spelling is fine. The content added is well-organized. It is broken down into sections that makes that article much easier 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
I do not believe any images or media were added to this 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?

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?