User:SDuncan123/Alpine marmot/Marquette Mutchler 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? SDuncan123
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SDuncan123/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?
 * We are not updating the Lead in our articles. The information written by SDuncan123 is otherwise concise and relates to the Alpine Marmot article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The content discussing hibernation and how marmots go about doing so is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Although not an expert on marmots, the references given are relatively recent. There could be more recent articles, but the sources given seem accurate enough to encompass the content written.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Given the brevity of the assignment, it is likely fine.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I am not sure. Hibernation isnt exactly an underrepresented topic, but smaller mammal studies are not often the highlight of mammal work.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes. Everything stated is factual.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not that I can tell. Again, each sentence is based on the sources given.
 * 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. The sources given seem reputable, however I am confused by the third source. I have not ever used the site that the information came from.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Given how few sources, a wide diversity of authors is not present, but likely not completely feasible?
 * 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?
 * No. Both sentences are fine
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Both sentences adequately reflect information in a proper order.

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?

No images added

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The two bolded sentences added are well-worded in that they sum up information concisely and properly.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * In the context of the assignment, I think what is included is fine. If one really wanted to expand they could find additional sources and include more information, but I don't think that is necessary for this assignment (?).