User:Xingyu 101/Moustached guenon/Jdonnini Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Xingyu101


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Xingyu 101/Moustached guenon


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Moustached guenon

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

'''Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:'''

 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

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, perhaps it needs to be added

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

no

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is quite detailed

 Content 

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

yes

Is the content added up-to-date?

it appears to be

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

More content should be added about the lab experiments

 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?

no

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 all sources appear to be academic in nature

'''Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)'''

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?'''

'''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.)'''

'''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?

Easy to read, may need to describe polyspecific association or link to definition

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Some small grammar errors can be fixed by running text in microsoft word

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Well organized for the most part, subspecies in the beginning could be organized a bit more or have more information added

 Images and Media 

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

yes the images are well done

Are images well-captioned?

yes

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

yes

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

yes

 Overall impressions 

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The article is more complete

What are the strengths of the content added?

The content added provides a good overview of the species and many peer reviewed references should people be searching for more information