User:Nchs21/Black-headed gull/Mn2019 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Nchs21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nchs21/black-headedgulls

Lead evaluation
No new content had been added to the lead. The lead that is already in the article describe only the birds but does not describe any of the major sections discussed in the article. The lead is too short I think it should be elaborated more.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The added content is relevant to the topic and is elaborated upon. The content is mostly up to date with two sources being in the 1960s. I think all of the new content adds to the understanding of the topic.

Tone and balance evaluation
Although the content is neutral overall, I feel that the section about sex differences is not. But overall, the content does not favour any claims over the other or attempt to persuade the reader to adopt the same point of view.

Sources and references evaluation
As I mentioned above some of the references are a bit outdated. The sources are reliable mostly from scientific journals and the links seem to work. I noticed that some sentences are not cited.

Organization evaluation
I think the content is well written and well organized. The language is clear to read and I don't notice any major spelling or grammatical errors.

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


 * 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
There are no images or media added to this article but I think there's a to images in the article. However, it would be beneficial to add images related to the new sections or graphs to support the content.

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 article is much more complete with new content added. The new content is fully developed and concise. However, the lead is not fully developed and non of the major sections in the article are mentioned in the lead so I think by adding a brief description of the points discussed would be beneficial. As for the media, maybe replace some of the ones present with more relevant ones.