User:Rsintchak/Sustainable hunting/Lcastillo4 Peer Review

General info
Rsintchak
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rsintchak/Sustainable_hunting?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template:

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.)

In the lead section of this article, it provides the definition of sustainable hunting, what it aims to do, and why it is becoming a popular aspect of hunting. This section has content that is clearly updated and current because it is a newer idea. This lead section does have an introductory sentence that clearly and concisely describes the article's topic: what sustainable hunting is and what it aims to achieve. This is a good introductory sentence because, without it, the topic of the article could be misconstrued and totally lost in translation because this sentence really encapsulates what this article is trying to achieve. The lead lacks a brief description of the article's major sections. It is clear what is trying to be stated throughout the article, but it lacks an explicit statement that states what will be included in the article. If this could be added, then this lead section would be great. A strength in this lead section is that it doesn't present any new information that is not present throughout the article. This is good because no new information is provided in the lead section that isn't backed up by additional information in the rest of the article. This lead section is concise and although it is slightly shorter, it is detailed and does not need a lot of additional information.

This article contains information about the reason why sustainable hunting is used, what it does for the hunting community, when it is used, the aspects of its history that led to its creation, the efforts that are being taken in order to support it and make it a worldwide idea, the issues that come with this idea, and the actions and plans that are used in order to proceed with sustainable hunting. The content in this article is extremely relevant to this topic because these are the pieces of information that important to understand in order to understand and grasp the idea of sustainable hunting fully. The content is up-to-date because the information that is in this article are from very recently updated and/or published articles, journals, and books. Although this content is very relevant and up-to-date, I think there could be a little more information provided in the "Methods" section because it says there are "various actions and plans" but does go in-depth into the various actions and plans that are part of sustainable hunting. Although this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics, it is still a very interesting topic that does not have a lot of information on and is useful for many people who are interested in this aspect of hunting.

This article contains very neutral content. A lot of the content is very unbiased because there are a lot of facts which give no room for opinion. After reading the entire article multiple times, I am having a hard time finding a lot of biased views or content. Almost all the statements made in this article are supported by facts and there is not a lot of diction included in this article that corresponds with a certain side, view, or political standpoint. A viewpoint in this article that is overrepresented is the idea that sustainable hunting is a good thing and benefits the hunting community. An underrepresented viewpoint is sustainable hunting is not beneficial to the community. I don't think that having this as an underrepresented viewpoint takes away from the validity of this article, but it would make the article more balanced because it would incorporate every viewpoint.

For this article, there are a lot of citation. This is definitely a good thing because it affirms that the statements made for this topic are valid and supported. The new content in this article is backed up by a lot of reliable secondary sources of information. For example, almost all of the sources were published or updated in 2024 (so very relevant data and information). Also, a large majority of the sources used are from reliable sources and are peer-reviewed or are from reliable websites/publishers. The content accurately reflects what the cited sources say. For example, a lot of the information that is cited in the source is summarized and reflects exactly what the article states. However, there is an issue with the source that was used in the current efforts section. The information in the article about the environmental changes and why this is becoming a more popular idea for the purpose of "conservation efforts" comes from a source that if you go to the link, does not have a page. Although I am sure this is valid information, making sure that all the sources are accessible is important because that helps affirm the validity of the article. I would say that the sources come from a slightly diverse group of authors. There is a good split of female and male authors, and authors of different ethnicities, but a lot of the authors are part of the environmental science community so that creates a bias towards that type of education. With that being said, this can create bias in their writing. If there were more sources added that relate to different authors from different paths of research, this would further affirm the information provided in this article.

Organization-wise, this article is well-written. The way the topic is divided into specific sections is well done and helps the reader focus on the important and critical information in order to understand this topic. I also think that starting the article with the history is a really good idea because it sets the reader up to understand why this topic is being discussed and why it deserves its own Wikipedia article. One alteration I would make to the organization of this article is not having a lead AND overview section. They essentially do the same thing and it is slightly redundant to have them both. If they could be combined somehow, then that would make the organization of this article even better.

There are a few spelling errors: "sustainable" and "environmental" are spelled incorrectly. I would just make sure that for the final article, make sure that you reread and make sure there are no spelling mistakes because, it doesn't decrease the validity of the article, but it does weaken your authority as a writer.

Overall, I would say that the organization of this article is really good and I wouldn't change much to it.

There are no images or media in this article. I think the lack of images and media is a weak point of this article. The images and media would enhance the understanding of the article. I think the only thing I will say about this is that there could be images or media relating to the conservation agencies that are involved in sustainable hunting.