User:Nikkitorno/Two Dogs Site/Robertovaldovinos 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? (Nikki Torno)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nikkitorno/Two Dogs Site

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does a very good job at describing the site but I feel the topic of the article is not immediately clear from the intro.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Lead paragraph does not mention the studies or their purposes found in later sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is strong, concise, stays on topic but I think is missing information about the studies and that is a big part of the body itself.

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? no

Content evaluation
The body of the article covers everything mentioned in the lead, all the content is relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no, very neutral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no viewpoints, just facts
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
This article does a really good job at staying neutral. In no moment did I feel the writer was trying to do anything other than inform me of the known facts

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? only using one source
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I could not access the source
 * Are the sources current? No access
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No link to the source is provided or it doesn't work

Sources and references evaluation
I wasn't able to access the source

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? very well written
 * 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? yes

Organization evaluation
The page is very well organized with appropriate sections

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

Images and media evaluation
No images were used

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? 1 source
 * 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? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? n/a

New Article Evaluation
It is a very well written article, it is clear, concise and neutral

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? facts, neutral, relevant
 * How can the content added be improved? n/a