User:Manii0305/Rodenticide/Lexi10656 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

manii0305


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manii0305/Rodenticide?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Rodenticide

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead describes the articles topics in smaller sections as home remedies and natural rodenticides, along with non target issues to how rodenticide can be harmful to animals. The two sections do have a clear topic sentence and are descriptions of what was missing in the original Rodenticide article. The information that was added was not originally included in the article. The lead has a good amount of information and I would not say that it is over-detailed.

Content: The content is relevant to the Rodenticide original article. It is up to date and it should belong in the article because there is not a lot of information on the original article of Rodenticide. They could have added a little more subheadings for different topics in Rodenticide, but overall, these were two good additions to the article.

Tone and Balance: The content added is neutral. There are not any claims that appear heavily biased, it seems to release only details about rodenticide. The content added does sway the idea that Rodenticide is harmful, and one of the toxic substances that should not be added.

Sources and References: The content is reliable as there are several sources of information which seem to be scholarly. The sources are current as most of them were made in the year 2021. The sources reflect the topic ideas and the links do work. There may be better sources that cover more information on rodenticide, but overall the sources used seem to be useful.

Organization: The content added is well written and it is clear and easy to read. There are no spelling errors, however there are many medical terms which are difficult to read. The content is well organized, but there are only two sections added, so there was not much to be organized.

Images and Media: There are two images added which show bay leaves that are in rodenticide and the chemical formula of Bromadiolone. The images state what the picture is, but does not explain why it is relevant to the article, however I believe that it is relevant to the article. The images are laid horizontally and are organized nicely according to each subheading.

Overall Impression: The content added is relevant and improves the quality of the article because it adds to missing information that the article did not originally have. The strengths of the content added is the information is valuable and useful however, I feel that there is a lack of information as there are only two subheadings.