User:Sabmarriie/Pet culture/Mikin83 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sabmarriie


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Sabmarriie/Pet culture


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

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles's topic? - Yes, it includes more information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - Yes, it includes a brief description.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overtly detailed? - It is concise!

Content[edit]

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, it is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, it is added up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - There might be more information that can be added to the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - I think it deals with it.

Tone and Balance[edit]

 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, it is written in neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No.
 * 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.

Source and References[edit]

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes!
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? - Yes.
 * Are the sources through - i.e., Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, those are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? - I think there is tons of sources that can be added in this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes.

Organization[edit]

 * Is the content added well-written? - Yes. It is well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - I didn't see any grammatical issue.
 * Is the content added well-organized? - I think so.

Images and Media[edit]

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - No.
 * Are images well-captioned? - There's no picture.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - There's no picture.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - There's no picture.

Overall Impressions[edit]

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article (is the article more complete?) - It is improved compared to the present article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - Peer added lots of references.
 * How can the content added be improved? - The detailed history of the pet culture can be added, making them separate section like 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, etc. It might be good to add which companion animals are popular as pets.