User:SDDynastyFan/Animal welfare in the United States/Vols22810 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SDDynastyFan


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Animal welfare in the United States


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)

The lead to this article is short and concise which is good but it doesn't include anything other than the definition of Animal Welfare in the United States. The article includes different laws and history which might be good to mention in your lead. Overall, the lead explains what the article entails which is good. The article is up to date. I can see that my peer has added and revised the article twice in the article history. The content of the article is relevant to the topic of Animal Welfare. It includes the history of Animal Welfare dating from 1641-present. It also includes the different laws based on states, an Animal Issues section with multiple entries, Public Opinion, and Animal Movement. The content is as neutral as it can be. It discusses the neglect and negative treatment of animals over the years in a multitude of ways so the only bias could be where they are arguing for Animal Welfare and the humane treatment of these animals. I could see the examples of animal abuse swaying a readers opinion pro animal welfare which is the humane and legal outcome. All of the sources I have looked into on this article are reliable and current. There are a diverse spectrum of authors with this article containing 81 sources. The images included in this article are captioned well and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. They are well placed in the article next to the headers of the section. The content added by my peer were punctual and grammatical additions and citations added. These are valuable additions to the article. The strength of this article is how it is written and cited. I would add some more images and maybe add some information to the lead.