User:Zaely.Rodriguez/Gobi bear/ZackBarbarisi14 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Zaely.Rodriguez


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Gobi bear


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gobi bear

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I don't think youve added anything yet so idk
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yeah i think its good, it gives lots of info in a concise amount of space
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No you could possibly add this though, especially for new sections you add
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Nah its good

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Again i don't know if you added anything
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yea
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * missing conservation section im sure youll add it
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No its a bear

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?
 * Underrep would be conservation stuff


 * 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?
 * You have not added anything so idk
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yeah
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yeah looks good
 * Are the sources current?
 * Close enough
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I think but its hard to tell from names
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yeah they work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, there are a few choppy sentences however you might want to fix
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, but im not a grammar genius but i think it reads well
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yeah i think what you are writing fits well under each heading