User:Yadukulakambhoji/Air sac/IanKreciglowa Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Yadukulakambhoji)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Air sac


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yadukulakambhoji/Air_sac?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Guiding questions:
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't think there is content missing, however the main purpose is to describe physiological changes, not so much the anatomy. I think it would be in your best interest to add more content to the "Other Uses For Air Sacs" section, describing why this physiological adaptation is good or bad.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, it focuses on air sac which are prevalent in birds

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is very neutral, using facts and resources when writing and staying away from personal opinions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are no claims that appear biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the anatomy section is a bit overrepresented and the "Other Uses For Air Sacs" is underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article is purely factual without a stance or a persuasion point of view.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all new content is backed up with reliable sources
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the references are used correctly with accurate statements.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there is an abundance of thorough sources included with this article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are not the most current, many being from the mid 2000's, however there are a few current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there is a diverse group of authors from many different backgrounds.
 * 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.)
 * There aren't really better sources available for this topic. Even though some sources are a bit outdated, the amount that the author used fills in all the gaps.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well written and easy to read for the most part. There are a few minor grammatical errors that can be ironed out easily.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few grammatical errors that can be easily fixed with another read through of what was written.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is well organized and it flows smoothly. The one thing I'll say is that the sandbox draft does noes include the original writing from the original article. That being said it will be important to add what the author wrote in the correct places so that the entire article will flow nicely.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

My peer did not ad images.


 * 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?

Final Remarks:

Since you have not edited the lead in your sandbox draft I am assuming that you are not going to change the lead, which is fine because I think the lead of the original article doesn't need much more. I like how you briefly explained the air sac before you went into the anatomy of it. However, the primary purpose of this article is to explain the physiology of something. You chose to write about the air sac which is a perfect topic, but you may need to add some more content about physiology. The anatomy section is well written and extensive, but it's not exactly what the article should cover. Overall nice work and great writing.