User:Maryedaviss/Brazilian shrew mouse/Beautimuss 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? (provide username): Maryedaviss
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Brazilian shrew mouse

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * 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? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
The Lead is doing an excellent job of describing the article and being clear and concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

Content evaluation
Everything that has been added has been relevant to the life of the Brazilian Shrew mice.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
There was no sign of the Lead being biased. The Lead made sure to follow all statements with a supported source.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are up to date and follow Wikipedia protocol.

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? yes

Organization evaluation
The article is well organized and straight to the point. There was no grammatical errors that I recognized.

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


 * 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 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? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes it accurately represents 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? yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? no.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good descriptions under the new headings provided. Everything is supported by up-to-date secondary sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? I feel the content was well and overall it is really good. The only thing would be to just add more information to make it an even stronger article.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the Lead is doing well with updating the article and filling in supported information about the Brazilian shrew mice. The Lead has done an excellent job with grammar as well.