User:Rsintchak/Sustainable hunting/Davidxosh Peer Review

General info
Rsintchak
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Peer review
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rsintchak/Sustainable hunting
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it introduces the topic very well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no, this area needs work to address each section
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? In my opinion it's a perfect length and is concise.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?100%
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no but seems like you can add more.
 * 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[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I could see both sides. Generally yes but you are boarding arguing for a more sustainable practice rather than just stating it for what it is
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? yes just whats mentioned above
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. I do think more could be added but nothing overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No other than whats mentioned above sort of.

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) mostly. Paraphrased very well
 * 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? Yes and yes
 * 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.) I couldn't find any
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes.

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? "There are multiple influences to the sustainable" you should consider changing "to" to "on". "Sustainability and conservation has been a relatively new focus for the world as envrironmental changes press forward" environmental spell change and has to have
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, well done

Images and Media[edit]
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?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? should add some

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)