User:Picoides/National Geographic Field Guide to Birds of North America/TheLastPuzzlePiece 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? - Picoides
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Picoides/National Geographic Field Guide to Birds of North America

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? - Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Concise.

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? - Some of the content, such as the list of editors for each edition and the number of pages, is relatively similar between editions, and some information is repeated as a result.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No.
 * 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? - Yes, though I'm not sure if you can cite from Amazon's website.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes.
 * 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? - The lead should have the article's name in bold rather than in italics. Under 5th edition, the word "plates" is spelled "pplates." The last section has a fragmented line ("this reduced bird book is 256 page outlines the 150 most likely yard birds in North America").
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - The content is mainly broken into different editions, and many of them provide similar points of information.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - No.
 * 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? - The article cites from several different sources, many of which are peer reviews of various editions of the field guide.
 * 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? - The article does have section headings, but no categories.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? - Yes.

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? - The content is thorough and comprehensive.
 * How can the content added be improved? - The article could add a section on the process of collecting information on each species, or list the guide's editors as a separate section rather than in each edition.

==== Overall evaluation - This is a good start. Personally, I think that the article could benefit from focusing on the critical reception of the guides rather than simply the number of birds and pages in each edition. ====