User:Mg7520/Abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity/Mn2019 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? Mg7520
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mg7520

Lead evaluation
New information was added to the lead but it is not very expanded. The introductory sentence mentions where behaviour is found but does not provide concise definition. The lead does include the main sections in the article but they are not described or elaborated upon. The lead is concise and does not include any irrelevant information.

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the article, but some of it is bit old. Some of the references are from the 90s and one of them is from 1969 which can be irrelevant now. I think more sections should be included discussing the other conditions mentioned in the article (like chronic egg laying, polydipsia...).

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral overall, I don't think there is any bias in favour of one position over the other.

Sources and references evaluation
As I mentioned above the references are a bit out-dated. The links work and they are from a relaible secondary source (mostly scientific journals). All the new content are cited.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is clear and written in a simple language that is easy to read. I don't see any grammatical or spelling errors. I do think that the major points of the topic should have bigger headings.

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image added, I think more should be added to each section to show evidence. The image was uploaded to the Creative Commons page and it follows the regulations.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think the new content provides more understanding to the topic, and it makes the article more concise. However, by adding more media and sections, and by making the lead conditions major headlines the article would be improved.