User:Kensarah1234/Egg tossing (behavior)/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? (provide username) Kensarah1234
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kensarah1234/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 do include a clear and concise introductory sentence that defines that topic. The lead does not have a description of the articles major sections rather it provides a description of the behaviour. It includes a brief overview off all topics that are in the article. It is not overly detailed and is easy to read. However, I am unsure of the parts that were edited and the parts that were already in the article. The strategy of clutch coordination is mentioned in the lead but is not present in the article. Other than that everything else in the lead seems to be relevant and elaborated on throughout 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
I am unsure of what content has been added to the article but all of the content is up-to-date and relevant to the topic. Maybe a section on the history and evolution of egg tossing would be interesting in the article. Some hypothesis of why this behaviour occurs or at what stage in the egg development. Overall the content is good and all of the content that is present is related to the topic.

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 is neutral, it does not have a biased towards anything. Nothing in this article is a viewpoint or hypothesis so there is no overrepresentation or biases towards any particular stance. It also does not attempt to persuade the 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
All of the content is sourced. The sources seem to be thorough and up to date. The links to the sources all seem to be working fine. Also includes many different sources to back up the information presented in the article.

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
Every section is easy to read. The sections are clear and concise and I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. It is also well organized with headings and subheadings for each section. Each section then represents a major point of the topic.

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
Lots of images in the article. They are have good captions exampling what is in the picture. Each image is place next to the section where it fits the best and where it is used to illustrate what the section is discussing. The images help the reader understand the behaviour better by providing a visual.

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 this is a good article. It is easy to read and explains the behaviour well. Everything is sectioned very well and all of the information seem to up correct and up to date. As mentioned before I am unsure of what is the information that was added and what was already in the article so I cannot comment on the improvement of the article or the strengths of the content added.