User talk:Avajar20/Instinctive drift

Peer review of Avajar20's article Instinctive drift by user AnimalBehaviorStudent Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Avajar20 Instinctive drift Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avajar20/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? '''Yes, the lead was updated and provided useful information on instinctive drift. It is clear, but too concise and requires additional information.''' Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? '''Yes, the introductory sentence concisely and clearly describes and most importantly defines the article's topic. Based on the view history, the lead has been edited several times and the contributor clearly defines instinctive drift.''' Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead does not provide a clear overview of the article because it is not detailed and therefore does not even mention the major sections.Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all the information in the lead is relevant to the overall topic. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? '''The lead is clear, but not detailed and therefore missing relevant information. Lead evaluation '''It is not detailed enough to understand the importance of the topic, so additional contributions are required to fully understand the topic. 5/10'''

Content
Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant to the overall topic. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the information added is up -to-date, but the article references an outdated source (one from 1961). Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content added is relevant to the topic. Content evaluation '''The content is relevant, consistent and well-organized. 8/10'''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes because one cannot guess the perspective of the contributor and the language used was very formal and unbiased. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? '''No, there were not any claims that appeared to be biased towards one side. The tone is neutral''' Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? '''No, the article provides a clear reflection of different elements of the topic and gives more weight to important ideas. ''' Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? 'No, the article does not make any claims on behalf a group, the contributor uses neutral language and presents various aspects of the topic. Tone and balance evaluation '''Some sections of the article are more detailed, but that is expected as this is only the first draft of the overall article and some ideas are more important than others. Each sections adds to the article and all perspectives are included and presented. 7/10'''

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 by a reliable source. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources reflect the available literature on the topic and are thorough. Are the sources current? Most sources are current and published within the last decade, but there is one outdated source such as the 1961 source. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work, but some sources are cited properly and therefore do not lead reader's to the direct journal or article. Sources and references evaluation '''Most the statements are attributed to various sources and most additional information is connected to a reliable source such as journal articles. However, some sources are not cited correctly.8/10'''

Organization
Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clear and easy to follow. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? '''Yes, there are some grammatical errors, but no spelling errors; the contributor should include commas to break up ideas and to eliminate run on sentences. To avoid minor errors, please reread article!''' Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is well structured, making it easier to follow and understand. Organization evaluation '''The content is in a sensible order and made sense. 7/10'''

Images and Guidelines
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (Comments made even though there were not any images to assist contributor)

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, there were not any images presented in the article. Are images well-captioned? '''No, there were no images and therefore there were not any captions. However, captions are important and help visual people understand the topic''' Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No, there were not any images, but once images are added it is important to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? '''No, the images were not present in this article, but it is important to remember the importance of images in articles. Do not forget how important placement is when adding images. Images and media evaluation 0/10'''

Overall
Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the article is more complete, but the contributor should reread the article to avoid minor grammatical errors. What are the strengths of the content added? The article is not detailed, but the author critically addresses instinctive drift and backs up the new content with reliable sources. How can the content added be improved? '''The article is well-organized and structured, now the contributor must add relevant information to each section. For instance, instrintive drift in racoons is clearly addressed while instinctive drift in pigs is only defined'''. Overall evaluation The article is easy to follow, clearly explains the instinctive drift in pigs and raccoons and presents the information in a neutral manner.7/10