User:Npodstawska/Separation anxiety in dogs/Rmalexandre 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? (provide username) 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? n/a
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? n/a
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? bullet points but overall yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? yes

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? nope
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? n/a
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? "not a companion for your dog, since it isn't " unnecessary coma but overall nice
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no images
 * 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

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? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? not many, yes
 * 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? not sure what is meant by this

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe its a great start of a new article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Important information is provided especially what can trigger this
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe just more information it looks like this is a new article so for a new article it could have more content, but overall great and loved it even learned from it !