User:Maryedaviss/Brazilian shrew mouse/Desensi ashley 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? No.
 * 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? Needs way more detail.

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? Yes, missing content on distribution, ecology, habitat selection, ect.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Multiple references to death in captivity from a single study.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Just the above study about captivity.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Somewhat.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, there are many other articles on google scholar and galileo.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, but some (like the source on digging) are not available to actually read.

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? Somewhat. I would combine lifespan and diet into one section on the ecology of the species and create a major heading for its distribution information that needs to be found.

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 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? Seems to be.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No.
 * 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? No.
 * 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? Somewhat. The morphology is definitely great, but the other information sections need more information. Also, adding more information from other articles is needed.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The morphology section is helpful for identification.
 * How can the content added be improved? More information is needed in all areas added.

Overall evaluation
Nice start, but needs more information and references.