User:Lolzish/Revenge/Hummingbird Hue Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Lolzish


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lolzish/Revenge?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Revenge
 * Revenge

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has not been updated to talk about how crows relate to revenge.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there is an introductory sentence that leads into the rest of the paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really. The Lead is quite brief and then it goes into the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the Lead touches on justice more than in the rest of the sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's extremely concise. I would argue that it needs a bit more information to preview the sections that follow.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I can see the content in User:Lolzish/Revenge to be fitting for the "In animals" section in the Revenge article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content looks the same as it was in the sandbox.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, though I notice that the portion about the crows greatly overpowers the other information on animals.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * What Lolzish contributed does not address Wikipedia's equity gaps. In the Revenge article, there are moments of naming familial or tribal groups. It also mentions a diverse amount of places around the world. The sections are diverse too, ranging from history, psychology, art & literature, symbolism, and even the internet!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * For the most part, yes. But words such as "proving" and "proven" makes it feel more argumentative. The word choice such as "dangerous" and "dangers" gives a more negative connotation around the crows. Using the author's name or giving percentages helps with neutrality.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * "Using a 'dangerous' mask to cover their face and trap, band, and then release crows, Marzluff observed that within two weeks, a significant percentage of crows encountered - 26%, to be exact - would 'scold' the people wearing the dangerous mask, proving that crows pass information pertaining to feuds within their family units to spread awareness about dangers they may face."
 * Trying to convince the reader of how people wearing a dangerous mask would be encountered by crows. There seems to be a lack of clarity of what a dangerous mask entails, and how exactly this encounter leads to a theme of communicating feuds.
 * I'm not sure what the word "un-banded" means
 * "This was further proven three years after the initial study, as the percentage of "scolding" crows increased to 66% from the initial 26%."
 * Tries to use a comparison of percentages to prove a point (26% to 66%)
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The first half of the "In animals" section is from what was originally there, which primarily covers information around chimpanzees. The second half of the section is what Lolzish added, which was mainly about crows.
 * For future edits, I would hope to see the influence of more animals that are not in the mammal or vertebrates.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes, the content tries to persuade the reader that crows are more dangerous and attracted to feuds, using studies to pack up their claim.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Personally, I don't think that this is a reliable source since it's a new source and not a scholarly source from a journal. Though I do think that CBC is credible.
 * I do think that the second source by Heather Cornell is reliable because it is published from the National Library of Medicine.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the content accurately reflects the cited sources in their own words.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The source feels niche and specific. I'm curious where this information about crows sensing danger came from. The sources they pulled from are from 2011, which doesn't feel like that long ago.
 * Are the sources current?
 * From 2011, so only about a decade old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I'm not sure who wrote the one from CBC news, but the one from the Natinal Library of Medicine has a few authors that contributed, which is good.
 * 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.)
 * From Google Scholar, I found:
 * "Wild American crows use funerals to learn about danger" by Kaeli Swift
 * https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/33178
 * "The Effect of Predator Type and Danger Level on the Mob Calls of the American Crow" by Jessica Yorzinski
 * https://academic.oup.com/condor/article/111/1/159/5152484
 * "Cautious Crows: Neophobia in Torresian Crows (Corvus orru) Compared with Three Other Corvoids in Suburban Australia" by Matthew Brown
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eth.12517
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work when I go to the references.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I had to re-read it a few times because the wording was a little tricky. I want to know what exactly a "dangerous" mask looks like. I also want to know what it looks like to "scold." I didn't know what "un-banded" meant either.
 * I couldn't tell when Lolzish was referring to a different reference.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I think that a better rewording of "This included crows not initially trapped by the mask-wearing researchers, seeing as some of the crows were un-banded." could be
 * "Some crows were un-banded, which meant that they were not initially trapped by the mask-wearing researchers."
 * In general, using the word "This" is a bit vague.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content added was just one paragraph, but it did go cover adequate informaiton about crows from two sources.
 * I may have created a new paragraph for the crows since the information before it is about chimpanzees.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content has added a new topic to the "In animals" section, but it is far from complete. If anything, the conversation has just begun.
 * I also wished that they made a more explicit connection to how crows relate to revenge.
 * For the future, I wonder if they could either research more animals.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Brings in a new topic to think about in the context of revenge
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Use more reliable sources to back up their claims.
 * Be more clear on how the information about crows connects to revenge.
 * Perhaps refer to a certain play that uses crows to symbolize revenge.

=== To summarize, I think that Lolzish brought in a great concept to the Revenge page. I'm craving to learn more about the history, and more reliable sources could help with this! Additionally, I think that there could be a closer connection to how crows relate to revenge, such as by referring to a specific revenge play. Good job! ===