User:Zynxo/Memphis Zoo/AlexisRosendahl Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Zynxo


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Zynxo/Memphis Zoo
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Memphis Zoo

Evaluate the drafted changes
Everything in the article is relevant to the topic, however, there is some information repeated throughout and placed in sections where it is unnecessary. For example, the two sentences in the lead section starting with “Since the early 1900s” and ending with “Ya Ya and Le Le” are not necessary because this is mentioned elsewhere in the article and does not fit in the lead section.

The article is very neutral. There were only a couple of tweaks I would make that impact that. In the Early 1900s subsection of the History section, I wouldn’t say “thanks to” but instead state who the money was donated from, so it appears more neutral. In the 1900s to present section, I would also change “the sea lions are fond of” to “the sea lions are known for” to make the statement more neutral. This will also make it different than the original article.

I think all viewpoints are represented. If I wanted to learn about the Memphis Zoo, this would be a great article to read over. As far as balance, I think the history section might be a little heavy, but it provides some valuable information.

I noticed all of the citations linked to the Commercial Appeal bring me to a page that says, “Something went wrong,” so you may want to look into that! The seventh citation brings me to a page that says “404 – File or directory not found.” Numbers 14, 16, and 21 also say “Page not found.” Other than those, the articles you cited were strong secondary sources that supported your statements.

I noticed several statements that were not followed by a citation. There are almost whole sections without one. I saw there are more citations on the current article, so I’m not sure if you plan on adding those to yours or not. As far as neutrality, I see you used a lot from the Memphis Zoo archives, which could be considered biased, but the information you used wasn’t, so I think it’s fine, especially as far as their history goes.

I think you did a great job making sure the article is up to date. I like that you added a couple more incidents to the list!

Overall, I think you did a great job working with the article that already exists. I would mainly just try to find more sources to back up the claims they already have in there!

A couple notes:

·      You’re missing a period in the lead section at the end of the sentence starting with “Since the early 1900s.”

·      I would take out the comma before “Jeffery Borchardt” in the Late 1900s to present section.