User:Moose1917/Birding in New York City/Fevans9 Peer Review

General info
BubblyBublik, Branzino05, Moose1917
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Birding in New York City group! Here is my peer review for you guys,

Lead
The article Birding in New York City haven't been edited by my peers yet but they are working on it. In this case, I have read the article and can help by providing pointers on what can be edited for when they start. The lead of this article does explain its purpose. If you do choose to make an edit, the best thing would be to include something that explains that the article will focus on urbanization effecting birds species in NYC.

Content
The content added in this article is relevant to the topic, and seems up to date. The article is broken up into main sections then has different topics that support that main section. For example the main section "Issues" and it has all the issues that birds in NYC seem to have listed and explained underneath. I feel like under this section is where you all can add and expand on urbanization effects on birds in NYC since it does already mention some topics already like pesticides, habitat loss and etc. The references included are recent, I did notice some from 2021 and the article doesn't deal with Wikipedias equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
I think the content has a neutral tone. The article doesn't seem to have any claims that are heavily biased.

Sources and References
Majority of the content is backed up by reliable sources and it does reflect what cited sources say. Sources that are listed are current, somethings that can be changed within the sources, is to get more peer reviewed and research papers. The sources do seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors. Certain articles were NY Times so it made it difficult for me to be able to actually view the source and read it, finding substitutions for those would prolly be helpful. I also think that there were alot of cited sources which is good because there is alot of information out there on the topic of NYC birds. I did go through each source and think that you all should visit cited sources number: 64,65,77 and 107 since I ran into errors while trying to open these links. Other than that all links provided work and are important to the topics mentioned in the article.

Organization
I think the article is very well written, and clear/easy to read. It doesn't show to have any grammatical/spelling errors. One of the things I like most in this article is the organization, it makes it very easy to find what you are specifically looking for. The paragraphs aren't wordy but short, detailed and straight to the point, when adding I think you all should continue with having detailed, short paragraphs. As it made the article easy and seem more interesting.

Images and Media
I do think the article has a good amount of images/media. Each subheading mostly has a photo paired to it, the sections that are missing images can get some added. The images are well captioned and adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations, they're also visually appealing. You can choose to change the layout, instead of just having the photos on the right side of the article but put them in other areas would also be good.

Overall impressions
Since the group is still working on editing and haven't really made any changes, there hasn't been much change to the quality of the article yet. I already find this topic interesting because it's about birds in the city I live in. This article when improved by my peers will turn out good and I am eager to learn more when it is presented to the class!