User:Spaceotter63/Bay owl/Tursiopsaduncus 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?
 * Spaceotter63
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Spaceotter63/Bay owl

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the user is adding to the Description and Distribution & Habitat sections.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, but the Contents section lists the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes "...genus of Old-World barn-owls."
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Too concise. It needs more.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Definitely, and relevant to the section titles as well.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * For the most part, yes.
 * 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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * "It is uncertain where the ancestors of these avians lived as the phylogeny of all species of bay owls have not been analyzed." This is a good underrepresented viewpoint because it shows a knowledge gap that could be studied.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, although I can't confirm the reliability of two of the websites.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * For the book and the research paper, yes. For the two websites, it's hard to say.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of them are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * They are written by a diverse group of authors, but I'm not sure if any of them include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all of them work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * "Although bay owls are typically smaller, they bare resemblances to other barn owls." In the lead section, the author hyphenated barn-owls. Should barn owls be hyphenated in this sentence?
 * "Other characteristics of the bay owl are groupings of feathers that resemble ears, and a divided face disk." No comma needed before and.
 * "Bay owls have also been attributed with U-or V-shaped faces." In my opinion, "associated" is a better word here than "attributed"
 * "Wings are rounded and their tail is colored chestnut, with a few, narrow dark bars." "Their wings are rounded and their tail is colored chestnut, with a few narrow, dark bars." is how I would write it.
 * "It is uncertain where the ancestors of these avians lived as the phylogeny of all species of bay owls have not been analyzed." Should be has, not have, since you are referring to the phylogeny and not the bay owls.
 * "However, their primary habitat is within dense evergreen forests, where the owls may roost during the day in the opening of tree trunks or branches sheltered by palm tree leaves, often no more than 2 meters off the ground." Split this up into two sentences.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

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?

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?
 * Definitely. The new content adds a lot of substance to an article that needed it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Very detailed in the description of bay owls. Highlights a knowledge gap pertaining the species.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Some sentences could be revised to enhance the overall clarity.