User talk:Dlporter83/Donskoy cat/Alyssa.Alfonso Peer Review

'''Peer review - DONKSOY CAT BY DLPORTER83 Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No it has not. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there is an introduction to the article. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes each section has a title. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information is relevant. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is neither overdetailed or underdetailed. It is enoug information to inform you on what the article consists of. Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant to the topic. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, I do not se any outdated information. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not notice any missing content or any content that does not belong. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, the article does not discusss or address these topics. Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? The content appears to be neutral with no bias. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no bias noticed. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is not mnay viewpoints on this topic. It is mainly informative. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content is not pursuasive. Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are 11 rerferences which all seem to be informational and based on history. Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, the content does accurately relfect what the references say. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Are the sources current? The sources are all from 2017 to current time. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources are written by different people, but all seem to be reliable. 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.) I belive that there are better sources available. Most likely, there are articles with more current information an more information in general about the topic. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The content is clear and organized. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None noticed. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, topics are broken off and seperated. Easy to follow and read. Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one image with an image of the focal animal. Are images well-captioned? Yes, the caption is relevant and informative. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. '''