User:Ksilver19/Prusten/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? Ksilver19
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ksilver19/Prusten

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 to match the content added by the user. The introductory sentence is very short and provides a clear definition of what the article is discussing. The lead discusses when the behaviour is used, what felines use it, and so on and each of these match with the sections that are included in the article. It does not include any information that is not discussed in the rest of the article and it is concise.

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 is relevant to the topic and goes into much greater depth than the original. The content is up to date, with the references mostly dated from the 2000's and one reference dated from the 80's. I believe that all the content does belong with the article. The information added explains this behaviour in great depth.

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 with no heavy bias toward a particular position. Each piece of information added is discussed and supported in a fair manner. Each section is represented fairly. If more information about the conservation use that is discussed in the section called, "Significance", can be found than another section just about conservation strategies could be added! Just an idea. The content added does not attempt to persuade readers.

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
Each statement and piece information that is added are all cited. The sources used contain very useful information that is a great addition to the article. The sources are relatively current, all from the 2000's except one which is from the 80's. All of the links 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 well written and easy to read, and I did not identify any grammar or spelling errors. The content is well organized! Each section created has relevant information in each. The sections labeled "Purpose" and "Significance" could maybe be joined as one, with the conservation portion being in its own section! This is just an idea, the sections are good as they are now as well.

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
No images were added to this article. If no images of felines actually exhibiting this behaviour are available, maybe just a picture of any species that does exhibit this behaviour, such as tigers, can be added!

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?