User:Sgtrab01/Jhagani13/sandbox/Sgtrab01 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? Jhagani13
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jhagani13/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?

Lead evaluation
The lead has been updated by editing what was previously written to be more coherent and accurate. It is clearly and concisely introduced. In the lead, it is mentioned that scientific research, sociological studies and the arts are all applied to reduce conflict. In the article, it discusses the first two and how they are applied (primarily in the Mitigation Strategies section), but there is no mention of how art is applied regarding human-wildlife conflict. Also, the lead provides a brief description of some of the headings, but not all (such as history of human wildlife conflict, though it does go into history of human wildlife mitigation strategies). Otherwise, it is a lovely lead!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date! There are some sentences that still need citations, though I think you must be aware of them because they still have been denoted by "(CITE)," in the last paragraph of the "History" section and in the introductory paragraph of "Mitigation Strategies."

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content does have a neutral tone. Nothing seems heavily biased, though I will say that human-wildlife mitigation accounts for about half the article, but that makes sense!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seem reliable, and reflective of various aspects surrounding the human-wildlife conflict concept. The sources are current and the links are functional!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is very well-written and flows intuitively through the sections! Some grammar errors that I've mentioned in the summary below.

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?

Images and media evaluation
Add more images! Especially right at the top of the article. The image you have in there is good, but I would explain it a little more in the caption. I assume the image in there adheres to copyright regulations but can't figure out how to check it.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not relevant.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
It's really good! The article is much better than it was previously! It has a nice flow, the sections are concise but informative and give an idea of the scope of human-wildlife conflict globally. Also, it gives a good sense of the causes, consequences, and how to mitigate. Some brief grammar and style notes that you can take with a grain of salt: in "Examples of Human-Wildlife Conflict: Asia" I would not say "..are becoming more and more" prevalent; I would just "more" or "increasingly." Also, in the next sentence, there is a sentence" "Like human-predator in Africa, encounters...." which should be fixed. Also in "Asia" the sentence "Attacks on humans and livestock have exacerbated major threats the tiger conservation..." doesn't make sense. Also, regarding a claim in "Marine Ecosystems," do great white sharks in particular have a history of injuring humans, more so than other species? Not sure about this-could be true but I thought it was more of a perception thing. Definitely would add some more pictures and give them descriptive captions, add citations where they're needed, and talk about how the arts are applied to human-wildlife conservation and it'll be fantastic!