User:Pagalpanda/Andean coot/Marquette Mutchler 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? Pagalpanda
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pagalpanda/sandbox

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?

We are not updating the Lead in our articles. The information written by Pagalpanda is otherwise concise and relates to the Andean Coot article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Only one article is sourced and is from 1993, which is technically relevant-ish. I am not up to date on Andean Coot high-altitude adaptations, so this may be relevant and up to date for the topic
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * For such a short addition, this is probably fine.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Possibly. High-altitude adaptations are ever-changing and are probably less-studied than other topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not really. It is neutral and factual.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Really only one point is made in the section, so nothing is really unbalanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

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?
 * Only one article is given, so more work could be done to find more information on this topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Ish. 1993 could be relatively current for Andean Coot work, but I am a bit doubtful.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Only one resource is given, so not likely.
 * 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?
 * It is concise and clear, but some phrasing could be reworked. These are just drafts so perfection is not expected haha
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A few minor ones. The first sentence is possibly unneeded or could be reworked rather than being short and odd sounding. The second sentence "As they are found at different altitudes, the once that lives..." needs to be fixed -> once to ones I am guessing is the word that was meant to be used. Otherwise it is a bit choppy sentence-wise, but again these are just drafts!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Would be cool to see more on the capillary numbers/ratios or something more technical brought in, but the assignment is supposed to only be a few sentences after all!

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?

No images are added

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?
 * Yes, it is relevant and fun information!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Concise and easy to understand
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Few grammatical and flow changes could be made, but nothing outstanding.