User:Swyndyl/Hedgehog/SeanKearns2001 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? (Swyndyl)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Hedgehog

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, explains what a hedgehog is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think that the lead is concise, does not get boring.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Not really, isn't about an everyday topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes I believe so
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think that there is everything that I need to know about a hedgehog in this article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is neutral, doesn't persuade the reader.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No I do not think so
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel like there could be more information under "Human Influence"
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No I don't think so.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Uses many sources for this article
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I would say so
 * Are the sources current? Yes most of them are websites, meaning that they have been published recently.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the ones that I checked did

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Very clear and to the point.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't see any
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, different sections for different topics made it very easy to understand.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes there is a nice image of a hedgehog.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the sources for the images are there
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, aesthetically pleasing

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, lots to look through
 * 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, looks very similar to many other articles and is laid out properly
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? I dont think so

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think that it made it flow very well
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Did not get boring after reading through it
 * How can the content added be improved? Add some more things that would make people want a hedgehog