User:Kaitlin3farrell/Calupoh/Patrickdoleary Peer Review

Looks like a great article- it was a little hard to pick up on details though.

I'm curious, it seems like you had an issue with citations and there are no citations present inside of your sandbox. You definitely want to resolve this!

Check out this sentence for grammatical errors: "The Calupoh is a unique breed of canine known for tits double-layered hair, which is medium in length and features a rougher texture on the outside to provide weather resistance to the elements."

and in general, I'd try to make your article more straightforward. You use lots of filler words.

General info
Kaitlin3Farrell
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Kaitlin3farrell/Calupoh
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Calupoh

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? Yes, but it should have a bolded introduction statement.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Some parts including the following should be written in the main section of the article: "In 1999, the breed was officially recognized by the kennel club of Mexico, Federación Canófila Mexicana, after researchers discovered the first hybrid. However, there is very limited information in regard to the Calupoh as it is a relatively new breed. In 2016, the Calupoh was re-introduced to the public by the Hank Family as a project of crossbreeding black German Shepherds with gray wolves."
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is quite detailed and could be more precise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I am unsure. There are no citations.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? N/A
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? There seems to be biases with showing it to be "suitable for any level of activity."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article seems to be written in favor of the Calupoh.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article seems to want to show that the Calupoh is a great breed of dog, even though it does include some evidence that says otherwise.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No sources are mentioned.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) No sources are mentioned.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No sources are mentioned.
 * Are the sources current? No sources are mentioned.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No sources are mentioned.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) No sources are mentioned.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No sources are mentioned.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few- one is mentioned in an above section.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Not applicable


 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Article is much more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The information added seems to be factual and greatly increases on things that we can know about this breed of dog.
 * How can the content added be improved? Citations are most definitely needed.