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

Peer review
Peer Review by user Pmbanks.

General info

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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
No real lead is provided. The article jumps right into describing the behavior rather than providing a lead which includes what is to be discussed in the article.

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 content is mostly relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. There doesn't seem to be any content missing, however, some content does not belong such as the description of the walking displays in the species, since that is not the behavior being discussed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral. There is no bias in the article ir any viewpoints that are more over represented than others.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The content is all backed up by scholarly material most of which is relatively recent with the exception of a few sources. The sources also seem to work when you click on the link.

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 broken into distinct and clearly labelled sections which makes it easy to read and follow. No grammatical or spelling errors were noted.

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
No media/images were added to the article.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

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
The article seems to be more complete since the student edited it. The strengths of the article are that a large number of scholarly sources were used to write the article and it is very easy to read and follow. The weaknesses of the article (how it could be improved) are that no media was added to the article which might help with the understanding of the article. Also, no distinct lead was added to explain what was to be discussed in the article.