User:Vpritchard/User:Vpritchard/Foxhound/Bradyamcevoy 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)
 * Vpritchard
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Vpritchard/Foxhound

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, but needs to be fixed up to function as a lead. Just adding an article title and maybe separating some of the information in the first paragraph out into other sections
 * 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?
 * Kind of, it should be more introductory instead of jumping right into the information
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Not really
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * A little overly detailed. Just think about separating some of the information you have out into other sections

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?
 * No


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Seems like it

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?
 * Common causes of death could probably include a little more information, if only to lead into the next section more smoothly (respiratory disease section)
 * 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?
 * Yes, generally. Disposition definitely needs a source and there could be another source after the first section of the respiratory disease section
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes


 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, but I would say in disposition you could use simpler language. "unbreakably mirthful" doesn't sound very encyclopedic, even though its an awesome description
 * 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?
 * The first paragraphs need to be broken up a little more. Really just making a very clear lead section would help a lot and then an overview of Foxhounds right after

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?

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?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Seems very detailed, feels like as much information as I could want about foxhounds
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Filling out common causes of death and disposition could be helpful, as well as just general organizing