User:Sydneyn23/Tracking (dog)/Sophykbutt 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) Sydney23
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sydneyn23/Tracking (dog)

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
The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content, but I believe that will be an easy fix for this individual. Right now the lead is the same as the original article.

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?

Content evaluation
Yes the content added is relevant to the topic. Adding sections such as methods for tracking and human uses for tracking dogs added lots of relevant information to the article and round of the page very well. As well, information added to existing section was also very well done and added nicely to the article. The content seems up to date as well.

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
All the added content was neutral and did not have a biais. All viewpoints were well represented and was now skewed in favour of one or another.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Yes all the information is backed by a source. The author seems to be very thorough with this and all information is cited. After clicking through some of the references they seem to work. Some of the sources seem to be on the older side, but there are enough new sources to balance it out. Many new sources were added and it helped to round out the article.

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 information is well organized into sections and sub-section. The whole article flows and is very easy to read. The concepts are explained enough so that they are easy to understand. I did not pick up on any spelling errors, but another read through never hurt.

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
N/A

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
overall the article seems to be very well done with lots of new information added in a clear and concise fashion. Perhaps adding an image would help to enhance the contribution further.