User:Kensarah1234/Egg tossing (behavior)/Ksilver19 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? 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
A few changes have been made to the lead, which help with the flow and wording. The introductory sentence is clear and concise. The contents of the article are reflected in the lead. There is a lot of good information, however some of it may benefit from being placed in a separate section. I would suggest that you create a new section called something like "Description of behaviour" and move some information there, just to break it up and ensure the lead isn't too 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 added is relevant. I would suggest that the paragraph on brood parasitism in the species section be moved to the brood parasitism section of the article, as it probably doesn't need to be mentioned twice. There are definitely some good additions, however I would suggest you continue to add a more for the final article, to ensure the contribution is meaningful.

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 tone is very neutral throughout the article and presents the information in an unbiased way. Good job!

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
Not many sources were added, but they are all reliable and mostly recent. Claims are appropriately cited. The links all seem to 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 article is mostly well organized and is easy to understand. It may help to add another section to break up the lead. Great job on rewording some of the information so that it flows better. There are a few minor grammatical errors, but overall it is well-done.

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
Great choice of images to add, they all aid in comprehension of the topic. Good captions. They are well laid out and seem to adhere to copyright regulations.

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

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 start to improving the article. The edits made are improvements, and the images were a great choice. However, not a lot of content has been added. With a bit of reorganization and further contributions, I think this will be a great article!