User:Prude.rager01/Chamicero de Perijá/Spaceotter63 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? Prude.rager01
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Prude.rager01/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?

Lead evaluation
Yes, the Lead has been updated. Yes, the introductory sentence is strong. Yes, I think the Lead has enough information about the other sections in the article. No, the Lead only has information that is expanded upon later. The Lead is concise without leaving anything out.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Yes, all content is directly related to the topic of the Chamicero de Perijá. Yes, all the content looks to be from fairly recent sources. I think that all the content included belongs, but I would be interested to learn a little bit more about the birds listed in the Biodiversity section, such as if they are in the same family/have similar diets (i.e. are all insectivores, omnivores, etc.). I also think since the section is labeled Biodiversity, maybe you could include information on other types of animals in this reserve. Otherwise, I would suggest changing the name of the section to something like "Bird Diversity" or something like that. I'm not sure if this article deals with an equity gap, but I remember looking at one of your sources and it said something about indigenous populations. Maybe you could include something about the since they are usually pretty underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
Yes, I think everything added sounds neutral. One suggestion I have is to change the word "narcos" in the last paragraph to "drug traffickers" to make it more formal. No, no claims appear heavily biased in any way. No, the viewpoints presented are represented equally. No, the content doesn't seem persuasive in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
Almost all statements have citations. There is one at the end of the paragraph about Biodiversity without a citation. I think the sources reflect most of the information on this topic, but I would be interested to learn more about more recent work done in this region, and if there are any reliable sources with information about that. Yes, all sources seem reasonably current, but like I said before, I wonder if any more current sources are available. I am not sure because most of the sources are from organizations with no specific authors listed. Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
Yes, the added is well-written. One grammatical error I see is in the Lead where you write, "It holds incredible biodiversity and home to numerous..." I think you need an "is" between and and home. Also, in the paragraph on Biodiversity you write "There are other endemic bird species in the region, but are more commonly come across, including the Rufous Spinetail..." I think changing this to "...in the region, those most common are the Rufous Spinetail..." would improve your sentence. In the paragraph about Geography I think this sentence, "The region also has a number of rivers that run through it, mainly feeders for the Manaure River," could be improved by changing "feeders for the Manaure River" to "tributaries of the Manaure River" if I am understanding the meaning of the sentence correctly. I think this sentence: "There are many more species that have still not been documented yet in the region" could be changed to say something like, "there are many more undocumented species in this region." Finally, in the last paragraph I think "scientist" should be plural. Yes, all the content is well-organized into appropriate sections.

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?

Images and media evaluation
Yes, the article includes two images that add to the article. Yes, the captions are well-captioned. Yes, the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Yes, I think they are.

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Yes, especially considering this article was a Stub, I think these new additions greatly improve the article. The new content covers a couple bases, which is great because even though there are only a few sentences for each section, this gives readers a good overview of a large part of this subject matter. The author also included a lot of links within the article to other Wikipedia articles which is great too! I think making the changes I recommended above, such as small grammatical errors, would improve this article.