User talk:Chrisreg509/COVID-19 impact on animals

hey Chris,

The lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the articles topic and it gives insight as to what the history of the content of the article is about. The lead includes information that is present in the article and that is very necessary for the contributions towards the theme. The constant is relevant to the topic and it's very up-to-date it has the latest information that the CDC has been giving out and I think that is very good because a lot of the information has been changing as more discoveries are being made about this virus. I think he took a really big risk on deciding to do the impact of the coronavirus on animals because there's not very much information out there about the topic, i had the same issue with mine because there's not a lot of information about the impacts of the virus on the environment but I think it's a very good step towards making people aware about the virus and its impact generally. Your content is neutral and I like how you don't choose a side you just give out information that makes the public aware about the information provided in your article you're not trying to persuade a reader in favor of any position. Are your content is backed up by a reliable source of information such as the CDC or the public health and that really helps with the credibility of your content. your links work and are very interesting. For your bibliography put them in the correct format that it goes not just links towards the websites I think it's supposed to go in a format I believe it's APA. But for your in-text citations I think they were very good in the sense that you cited everything you said with reliable resources. Something you can improve on is when you speak about something like the CDC, you can link it like highlighter the phrase Centers for Disease control and link it to the Wikipedia page that defines what the CDC is just so that your readers have a better understanding of some words or phrases used in your article. It will give a better understanding to the public about what you're speaking about. An example would be the word bioaerosol you can highlight it and link it to the definition on the Wikipedia website and it will make the reader's life so much easier and it will help them better understand and interpret what you're trying to tell them with that information. Your content is very well written and it's very clear to read, this was very interesting and I wish you would have wrote a little bit more because it's a topic that there's information and evidence about but the public has a hard time grasping and interpreting that information. You have no grammatical or spelling errors which is I think is a very important part 218 no organization of your article and I think that was very excellent. Your content was very well organized because it was broken down into sections of your topic for example you started out defining what the coronavirus is and the information needed necessary to understand the impact it has had on the animals. It was very well organized. Although Your article was very well written, I believe that adding a few images would help enhance the understanding of the topic. An example would be the sentence about how “it can be contracted too through speech to tiny droplets in the air as a result of spit forming a bioaerosol” you could add an image that could help visually understand how this Disease spreads and can be contracted. Although you have enough reliable secondary sources for your article I think it would be a improvement for your article if you expand on the list of sources and represent all available literature on the subject even though there's little information about it. Having more reliable secondary sources will help bring credibility to your name in the article and that is a very important regulation for Wikipedia and for the accuracy of your article. I think you have a very good notation of your article and another topic you can discuss in it would be how the coronavirus quarantine specifically has improved the wildlife conditions. How more animals have been sighted on the streets and roaming the city if there is proper evidence for sources. Overall, your article was very well written and it was very concise on the information you provided. It was very well organized and cited thoroughly. Very good topic and contributions.

Peer Review
Hello Chris,

Before reading the body of your paragraph, I found it helpful that you gave some background on what coronavirus is. I think it's important to note that some audiences will not always know what we are talking about. Therefore, explaining what our subject will be on is crucial and an added factor that can contribute to our credibility. I decided to peer review your article as it correlates somewhat to my digital campaign of animal testing. With that said, I liked how you mentioned in your article the story about the Tiger that caught COVID-19. I think this was an important thing to note given the fact that at the beginning of the pandemic, there was a myth that animals were unable to catch the virus. I think your article brought to light that any mammal (e.g. humans or tigers) can be disposed to a vast growing virus. Couple comments I have in regard to your article is including more information about how animals may have a possible vaccination that can prevent them from catching coronavirus. I feel that the more information you get on this topic, the more credibility you will provide to this short statement on your article. I know there may not be that much credible information about coronavirus affecting animals due to the fact that its recent, but any related information on animals and vaccines are just as valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingrid0229 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
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) Chrisreg509 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chrisreg509/COVID-19 impact on animals Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory sentence, but it gives a general view of the topic, but not the specific general view it should. For example, it specifies and only talks about COVID-19, but it never gives at least a brief view of how it is affecting animals. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is more so concise and straightforward, while it points out some interesting facts about the topic, I think that they should be added in the actual article because they just seem out of place and random. Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, just more information should have been provided. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, I think they should have expanded more on what animals are susceptible to the coronaviruses and an explanation should have been given on how some animals such as dogs as that is what the author is claiming, do not get infected by the coronavirus since the author seems to contradict himself and should have scientific evidence to support and make the reader understand more. Not all readers will be able to understand if they do not have a background knowledge to the topic. Additionally, some information was out of context and unstructured as in all over the place (disorganized). Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? It seemed to just wanted to be informative and neutral, but at some points the opinion of the author indirectly would be influenced in the article. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, I think the author is a dog-owner/dog-lover so the information seemed biased as the author kept on pushing that dogs would not get the disease. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, the author contradicts himself saying that dogs cannot get infected by COVID-19, but yet says that dogs already have coronavirus within their system which is why they are vaccinated so they can be immune to one strain that inhabits only in dogs. This is what is under-presented in the article and should be explained in detail with the support of reliable, credible sources. Also, he mentioned animals in general, but focused more on dogs than anything, if anything he only mentioned one different animal which was that of a tiger. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I feel like the author aims to persuade people that dogs cannot get the coronavirus, especially the strain that we are currently facing on a worldly scale of COVID-19. Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The article has great reliable and credible sources that had the potential to have created a phenomenal article but the sources weren't used to the maximum. For example, most of the sources were of the Central Disease Control or the CDC for short. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They were not used in detail and thoroughly, rather just for their generality and in some occasions some random details were supported. Are the sources current? Yes Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It could have been more enriched by using better word choice and sentence structure. There were a lot of fragments. Definitely, easy to read and straight to the point. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling errors, but there are grammatical errors such as fragments and use of sentences that weren't followed through. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, not at all. If this had more sections or at least went from a general point of view to then the specifics without any random information being added that is irrelevant in the placement, then it would have been executed in a beautiful way. Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but some were out of context as they had nothing to do with the article and weren't spoken about in the article. Are images well-captioned? No, no captions at all. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They don't have a bad placement as that is what first caught my attention, but they could've been better placed along the side of the articles with captions to explain or pictures of animals that were spoken about as well as pictures of the microscopic view of the coronavirus (COVID-19) since this was discussed in detail, at least the appearance of this virus. Images and media evaluation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalva450 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)