User:Sydneyn23/Tracking (dog)/TOliver9712 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? Sydneyn23
 * 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
- User has added "Methods of Tracking" section, but has not addressed this in the lead.

- First introductory sentence is concise and clear.

- Lead has been revised to mention use of tracking in domestication.

- Lead is concise but could add some more information (ex: add some professions in which tracking is used).

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
- All content appears relevant.

- All content appears fairly recent (except for a couple of references)

- All content looks like it belongs in the article, and nothing seems missing.

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
- Content is neutral.

- No heavily biased claims.

- No persuasion found within the draft's parameters.

- "Phases" section still appears underwhelming (and should be rewritten in paragraphs rather than jot notes). "Factors" section is on the right track but could benefit from another paragraph.

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
- All new content is supported by references.

- References reflect the available literature.

- Some sources are fairly outdated.

- All of the links work fine.

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
- Content is concise and clear.

- Some spelling and sentence errors (ex: 'dogs' should be 'dog's' when talking about the actions undertaken by dogs.

- Some sections could benefit from sub sections: namely the "phase" and "human use" sections.

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
- No images/media added: 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
- While some of the content added does indeed improve the article, there are still sections in need of work.

- The article particularly benefits, in terms of added content, from the addition of "tracking uses" and "methods" and a vast expansion of the "physiology" section.

- The "methods" paragraphs can be condensed into one, with terms such as "air scent" or "ground scent" bolded.

- The bolded terms in the "human uses" section could be their own subsections; the same should be done for "specific uses" as it is currently bullet-pointed.