User:Sophiaschoen/Galapagos penguin/Sswartout13 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? (provide username)
 * Sofiashoen
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Sophiaschoen/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No it hasn't been updated but it seems like she want's to change some things
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It introduces the topic well but doesn't provide thr=ourough information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No the lead is very short
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * NO
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is to concise it needs more details.

Lead evaluation
The lead is very small so it has room to get beefed up and ogo into further explanation.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is very relevant and useful to the reader
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes it is up-to date the sources are all from 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Content evaluation
The content added is very good and gives further explanation the the reader about these penguins. I like all the subsections that are added they are very relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * This subject couldn't really be biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No it is very equal
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * NO

Tone and balance evaluation
Adding the sub sections that sophia has in her sandbox will create a better balance within the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current
 * yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Sources and references evaluation
All the added sources are reliable and used well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is very well written and concise
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are none that I can see it is though rally thought out and reviewed it seems like to me
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes it is well organized the sections it is broken up into makes it easy to read and understand.

Organization evaluation
Adding these sections will make the layout of the article flow better and for the reader easier to navigate.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * They could use a better explanation
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

Images and media evaluation
Overall the images seem very aplicable.

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 the content that is added to this article is making the article way better!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It brings in dimension if the penguin and gives more aspects to what it has.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe by adding more sources and expanding on the information you currently have.

Overall evaluation
This draft is looking excellent and I think it will make the article 100x better!