User:ZombieManF/Linnaeus's two-toed sloth/IanKreciglowa Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(ZombieManF)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZombieManF/Linnaeus%27s_two-toed_sloth?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Linnaeus's two-toed sloth

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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been updated, however I don't think much more can be added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead does include all of the pertinent information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information in the lead is relevant to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is relevant to the topic. That being said I think more content needs to be added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The main purpose of this assignment is to describe physiological effects. I think more needs to be added on physiology of two-toes sloths.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral and factual.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there is no bias in this article due to its evidence based writing.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The physiological effects are underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added does not try and persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all new content is backed 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 content added is accurately represented by the sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough and reflect available literature on this topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are relatively current, most being from the early 2010's decade. I think there may be more relevant sources available.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources 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.)
 * There are better sources available on this topic.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added is well written and easy to follow. It is also concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content added is grammatically correct without an spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes the content is well organized.

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

No images have been added by my peer.

Overall impressions
The content that has been added is well written and organized. It is free of grammatical and spelling errors. However, I think more content needs to be added in order to described the physiology of the Two-toed sloth. Phylogeny. Morphology, and Ecology are all important and should be included in the article, but more content needs to be added.