User:Spera435/Hardwicke's woolly bat/Sstro483 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 )Spera435
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Hardwicke's woolly bat

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?some
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?yes

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is more information on this species available

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?no
 * 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? the link to the IUCN isn't directly linked to the species but the overall website
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? some, there's more information out there on this species
 * Are the sources current? some
 * Check a few links. Do they work? the IUCN should be a direct link to the species

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?no
 * 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?no
 * Are images well-captioned? no it's a drawing, live images are available
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? A live image of the species would be best

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? only one
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?yes
 * 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?yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? older ones

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes, there's more information available on this species
 * What are the strengths of the content added? good
 * How can the content added be improved? yes