User:Madisonolds98/Goose bumps/Kate.Rosenbaum 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? madisonolds98
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Goose bumps

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead provides a strong general overview of the terminology and function of goosebumps.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? N/A
 * Is the content added up-to-date? N/A
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Unknown?

Content evaluation
The section titled "response to cold" mainly focuses on goosebumps as a response to other emotions (ie. fear), so this section could benefit revision to expand the content regarding goosebumps and cold climates.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? N/A
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not really
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The focus of this page is mainly on goosebumps in humans, so it could be helpful to include more information on this response in other species.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
"People often say they feel their "hair standing on end" when they are frightened or in awe." This sentence could be reworded to sound more neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, lots of primary studies.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? For the most part
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Bibliography is detailed, so presumably.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the original sources link to primary studies, so I am not sure how reliable these are. Also there are direct quotes which might not meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The page could be reorganized to include the "response to cold section" as one of the subsections under "causes."

Organization evaluation
The page could definitely be consolidated and the sections could probably be refined to make the page more concise.

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?

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? I like the idea of adding a section on the evolution of goose bumps as a survival tactic. That could help in connecting the human sections to those about other species.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?