User:Sloth Mode/Corvus/PricklyFish Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sloth_Mode


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Sloth_Mode/Corvus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sloth%20Mode/Corvus?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Corvus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvus)

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.)

Lead
The lead section has not been updated to reflect your addition to the article, though I did note that there are many sections missing from lead section. There is no mention of sections such as diet, lifespan, cultural significance, etc. Perhaps this could be something you could add in addition to your current contribution to make the article even more well-rounded. The introductory sentence of the lead section does describe the article's topic at the article overall is discussing the genus Corvus. I feel as though the statement beyond the semicolon in the second sentence of the lead article is a little unnecessary and would fit better within the Description subsection.

Content
Your contribution is relevant to the your topic. The information you are adding is fairly up to date. Some of the sources you have added are from the early 2000s so this information may be slightly dated now, but I am not aware of the current research regarding this topic so this may be the most current information available. You have provided some interesting information regarding raven-wolf relationships.

Tone and Balance
The content of your article gives a neutral tone, there were no claims that were pointed towards an opinion more than another, and you did not over- or underrepresent a certain point or topic.

Sources and References
The links to the references are accessible. Your sources are current, however I would suggest looking for more sources overall to back up statements made within your contribution. In total you only have 4 unique references, but only 2 are peer-reviewed journal articles. I believe your article contribution would benefit from having more reputable sources. Not all of your stated information is backed up by reliable secondary resources, for example when you wrote:

"Ravens are also capable of distinguishing between coyotes and wolves and have shown a preference for wolves. This may be due to the fact that wolves kill larger prey. When hunting, ravens can locate injured animals, like elk, and can call out to wolves to kill them." There are no citations listed here and it left me wondering where you drew this information from. I would also be cautious of close paraphrasing such as when you mentioned how often ravens can be seen with wolf packs in the winter as I found this statement to be quite close to the source you have listed. You have also made a statement that is rather close to a source but is not referenced at all:

"This includes playing with cubs, using sticks or picking at their tails." I would consider reviewing this sentence so it does not appear as close paraphrasing or left without a source.

Organization
The content you have drafted is well written. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors within your draft. Overall, the article seems to follow well. Within your contribution I would suggest however adding your final paragraph to the end of the "Intelligence" subsection, and then creating another section for your top two paragraphs with the title "Foraging" perhaps. By adding all of this information within the "Intelligence" subsection I feel as though there would be too much content within the section and would make this section of the article seem unbalance, though this is only my opinion.

Images and Media
The image you have added does enhance the understanding of the topic as you can clearly see how ravens co-exist with wolves. The image is well-captioned and does follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations as this photo is listed as public domain.