User:Npodstawska/Separation anxiety in dogs/NicholasDeniro 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? Npodstawska
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Npodstawska/Separation anxiety in dogs

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not updated, no.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I don't know about lead, but the edit history gives a clear, concise view of the edits.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not updated, no.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is concise in its goals.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, there isn't.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does not.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The source from the Humane Society might be biased towards particular points on dog care.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there aren't.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it doesn't.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources are not empirical or peer-reviewed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think they do, but I am unsure.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Impossible to tell.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

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?

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? I think that while the sources are relatively weak, they add new information that is pertinent and helps illuminate changes in the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It adds additional content to the list of causes, which is important for understanding the disorder, and it also adds important information for treatments as well.
 * How can the content added be improved? It can potentially be backed up by peer-reviewed studies and empirical data, as that would lend more credibility to the new points made.

Overall evaluation
Very helpful changes that add context and clarity, but sources are relatively weak as far as empirical studies.