User:Zynxo/Memphis Zoo/Deb316 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
Lead: I think the lead in the draft needs to be updated and double check that it covers the new content added. I think the introductory sentence gives a preview to what the article will be about and it concisely covers and describes the topic of the article. The lead includes some brief descriptions, but not from all of the article's major sections. Some are left out like 'landscapes' and 'incidents'. The lead includes all relevant information that is presented in the article. I think the lead is concise, but it should have a little bit more information and detail in it.

Content: All of the content added to the article is relevant to the topic and I think most of the content is up to date. The last sentence under exhibits is no longer relevant since it was talking about what was being offered in 2012. The content in the article belongs as it is relevant to the Memphis zoo. I do not think the article deals with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps or address topics related to historical underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance: The content added is neutral and does not provide any bias. Claims do not appear biased toward a particular position or viewpoint. The content added does not seem to persuade the reader in favor of one position vs another.

Sources and References: The new content seems to be backed up by a reliable source even though I think this could use double checking by the author. The content reflects what the sources say and the sources seem like accurate and thorough sources to use. Some of the sources are not current and are older; most of them are current sources though. The sources are written by different authors and I do not know if they include historically marginalized individuals. I do not think there are many better sources available as the ones already listed seem very legit and reliable. The links do work when I click on them.

Organization: The content added is well written, concise, and easy to read. There does not seem to be any grammatical or spelling errors that stuck out to me when reading the article. The content is well organized with sections that reflect the major points of the Memphis zoo.

Images and Media: I do not think my peer added image or media to the article. I could be wrong, but I do not think there is any added.

Overall Impressions: I think the content added improved the detail, insight, and quality of the article as it seems more complete. I think some of the content needs to be improved by being more relevant and up to date. There are some instances throughout the article where the information is a little behind.