User:Otter2000/Frozen zoo/GuySmiley03 Peer Review

General info
Otter2000
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Otter2000/Frozen zoo
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Frozen zoo:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The new information added to the article did not require altering the lead in any way. But the Lead section is poorly written and could benefit from being rewritten.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the first sentence perfectly sums up what frozen zoos are
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No it does not. The lead could use some work to properly introduce the article. Also the Lead could be formatted differently to allow for a better flow in the article. I would recommend after the lead (the first paragraph) a new Heeding is added that says "Overview" since that's what the paragraphs following it does. It would also then distinguish the Lead from the rest of the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Nope
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, but could use more information added to it as it is lacking necessary Lead formatting.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is relevant. Adding more applications/examples of the frozen zoo benefits for different species is important as it shows the existence of the frozen zoos is necessary. Also adding information explaining more about the current institutions that house frozen zoos is important as there are few of them in the world.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes it is. It is all from recent years. The information about the White Rhinos is from around 2009 and the information about the Frozen Arc is from 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There isn't any context that doesn't belong, but this article could benefit from more much more information being added. The editor did a good job on adding the information they did, but the article as a whole could use more work. Especially the "Current Uses" section benefit from having the different frozen zoos all having an equal amount of information presented about them.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't believe this applies to this article in any way.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, there appears to be no bias in what was written
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Nope
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Nope

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes all the information is properly sourced and comes from peer reviewed scientific literature.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes they do. I checked the sources for the White Rhinoceros and the Ibex and both articles accurately reflect the information that was placed into the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes both sources are professional peer reviewed papers that don't seem bias or non thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. The years of the sources are 2009, 2011, 2009, 2009, 2019, 2009, 1999 and 2020 which are all very current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I don't have any way of knowing what the race is of the authors of the scientific sources cited and I can't assume based off their names.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * All sources provided are peer reviewed sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Not all the links work, but proper citations are included, I imagine they will be properly formatted when added into the public article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The information is very well written, clear, and easy to read. It is also easy to understand as some topics in the article can get compilated. This then though creates a problem of a weird flow in the article as the quality of writing increases with the newly added information
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I can find
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The formatting could be changed up to allow for a better flow. I would recommend taking "Drawbacks with Cryopreservation" making it a heading, and placing it before "Applications." Besides the movement of that information (and adding an overview heading as mentioned earlier) the information is well-organized and fits the topic well. Looking at the main article, I would recommend moving the image of the Pyrenean ibex to the righthand side as it fits the formatting of the article better too. Also under the information with the Gaur, there are links that are no longer active, so removing those would be important as well (trans-species cloning and clostridial enteritis).

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is definitely more complete, but could use much more work. To make it a good article would go outside the scope of the assignment, but what has been added has helped move the article in a wonderful direction.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The largest strength is the information about the drawbacks of cryopreservation and the information about the Frozen Ark. The drawbacks help make the article more whole as it provides a differing viewpoint that wasn't present before.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I would recommend potentially elaborating more on the Pyrenean Ibex. The Ibex seems to be an important story if the concept and application of frozen zoos, so telling more of it's story would be helpful to the overall article. Besides this and the recommended changes presented earlier in the review, this is a solid improvement to the article.