User:Spaceotter63/Bay owl/Stercorarius Parasiticus 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

I am reviewing a draft by Spaceotter63.

User:Spaceotter63/Bay owl

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
No edits were made to the 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added provides critical information previously missing from the article. It appears to all be up to date (sources are from the past 10 year or less) and very relevant. Currently, the lead of the article is one sentence so adding to that would be a great next step for filling gaps in the article.

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 tone of the writing was great. It appears to be neutral and unbiased. You did a great job of adding lots of detailed information without making it overly technical. This balance made it very readable,

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The sources overall look pretty good. I think it would be better if you relied a bit more on academic sources but I understand it's probably hard to find good info on this group. The first one is an organization so I think it's fine but the fourth one is basically a blog from what I saw. I would remove the last source and find a description of their distribution in a different text.

The formatting looks great (in right section, all links work) but I don't think you need to add the same citation two/three sentences in a row. Just add them to the last uninterrupted sentence that uses that citation (and add it in again in the time it shows up). For example, use citation #2 at sentences 3 and 7 but not 5 or 6 in the first paragraph.

Authors appear to largely be from Europe (Germany, Switzerland).

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 logically structured. However, there are a few small edits that could improve some sentences (see overall impressions). The content is broken up into the sections already in the article which works well.

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
There were no images/media in the article. I found that all the media was removed when I tried to copy my writing from my personal sandbox to the article specific sandbox so that may have been the cause.

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
This is not a new article.

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
I think this content will greatly improve the quality of the article. Currently there is almost no information in the article so this will provide lots of critical details and context. I think the writing overall was great but there are some small edits I would make, particularly in the second paragraph, to improve it.

I think "It is uncertain where the ancestors of these avians lived as the phylogeny of all species of bay owls have not been analyzed." is a bit confusing because the ideas blend together. Maybe try something like: "Because Barn Owl phylogeny has not been properly studied, their ancestral range is currently unknown" to separate them. I also think the fourth sentence of the second paragraph could be made into two sentences. Specifically, end with a period at the second comma and delete "where the" to start the new sentence.