User:TheSkyisBlue3/Captive breeding/Ocsb1902 Peer Review

General info
I am working on @TheSkyisBlue3
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:"User:TheSkyisBlue3/Captive breeding", Wikipedia, 2023-10-18, retrieved 2023-10-19
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):"Captive breeding", Wikipedia, 2023-10-15, retrieved 2023-10-19

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead has been updated to add the new content that you added to your article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead didn't change from the beginning, but the lead is well worded so there wasn't any extra detail that was needed to be added.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it does give a brief description of the major sections of the article, including the new sections that were added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, I would say everything that was mentioned in the lead was mentioned in the article itself.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say that the lead is very well worded, and has the right amount of information that you can exactly follow what the topic is going to be over.

This article has a great opening topic, it mentions what captive breeding is well giving a good description of it. There hasn't been a new lead created but that is because the lead from the original author was worded well. I also think it was a good idea of the fact that a sentence that connected captive breeding with the process of education and research in mind to tie the article together was a nice add on.

Content:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content is very relevant to the topic, there is also information that you wouldn't think would relate to captive breeding but it does.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The editor has some articles that are very outdated, I know the articles mostly likely still hold relevant data that still applies to captive breeding today but there are some problems using older data. If the editor were to use more articles that are up to date you could include information that is more accurate to our captive breeding programs/ information that we now know to this day, and if the information has changed since the original article was published. I would potentially suggest that in the future it might be helpful to use sources that are more up to date in their information, (anything that was published before 2000 has a high probability that it could be potentially out of date).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that is missing from this article, the editor created a very detailed article that includes everything that there needs to know about captive breeding. Everything in the article that was added was simply just details that expands on certain topics.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article talks about people in conservation education, and ethical considerations but not in a historical underrepresented populations so I don't think this question applies to this article.

There was a sufficient amount of new information that was added to this article

Tone and Balance:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes the content that was added to this was very neutral, I could not identify anywhere in the added information where the information sounds bias in any way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there is no claims that are heavily bias, this article was completely written out of pure known information, and is simply here to better our understanding on captive breeding.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No there are no viewpoints that are over or underrepresented, this article is completely written out of known facts.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not try to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All of the editors information is well backed up in the article, the sources are correctly backed up throughout the article.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes the information correctly reflects what is cited in the sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Most of the sources are thorough, there are a couple that are short articles
 * Are the sources current? iThe editor has some articles are used that are very outdated, I know the articles mostly likely still hold relevant data that still applies to captive breeding today but there are some problems using older data. If you use more articles that are up to date you could include information that is more accurate to our captive breeding programs/ information that we now know to this day, and if the information has changed since the original article was published. I would potentially suggest that in the future it might be helpful to use sources that are more up to date in their information, (anything that was published before 2000 has a high probability that it could be potentially out of date).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes the articles are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes there is plenty of peer-reviewed articles that are used as sources throughout this written article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes all the links work, the only thing that needs fixed is some of the dates are inputted incorrectly in the cited workspace.

Organization:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I would say that everything in this article is very well written, at first it was a lot to take in because of the amount of information in the article, but all of the information is important to have included in this type of article. Captive breeding to some people could be classified as a hard topic to grasp with so the addition of so many different topics and viewpoints to look from is important. One thing that could help keep part of the article a little more organized is in the research section, it was hard to understand is the different paragraphs if it was a new topic you were speaking about or if it was a add on from the previous topic so possibly making it a little more know could be beneficial.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No there are no grammatical or spelling errors in the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the article is broken down in well organized sections.

Overall Impressions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the content that was added does improve on the overall quality of the article, the editor added new information about research, conservation education, and expanded on many of the sections that the original editor already had included.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Everything that the editor included added strength to the article that was already written, I think they new sections that the editor added also added to the strength of the article, and was very beneficial to the article that was already there.
 * How can the content added be improved? The only thing I could say to improve the article is to look over the older sources that were cited to double check to see if the information that the editor took from it and make sure there isn't any new information that has expanded on the topic, other than that though I would say that this article is very well written.

Additional Questions:

The only additional question/ statement that I have is potentially could you expand your lead section about conservation education and research to say another statement about the content you added. It is very straight forward so potentially added a extra sentence to further expand.

Analysis of the goals and accomplishments provided by the editor for the article:

After analyzing this article I believe that all of the goals and accomplishments that the editor set out to achieve were definitely accomplished. The editors main goals were to expand on current sections and create new sections of their own that they felt were needed. The editor created two new sections and they were very well written, and included the right amount of information that would capture the idea of their sections without having to add a lot of extra unneeded fluff. The editor also expanded on current sections that were already there, and after going through and analyzing the old and new article I would have to say that all the information that the editor added was definitely needed, and expanded on the topic in ways for the audience to get an even better understanding over captive breeding. Overall I think that the goals that the editor set forth to achieve were definitely accomplished, the article was improved from how it was already written, and even had new content added, this article was very well written out and I don't feel like there needs to be more work done with the stated goals. There were articles that were used that are outdated so the only additional goal that I could suggest to add to this article would be to go back to the sources and double check that all of the information that was added is still up to date with what we know now.