User talk:Rd989/Fainting goat/Pmbanks Peer Review

Peer review

Peer review by user Pmbanks

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Rd989 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rd989/Fainting goat Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation

The lead has been updated to reflect the new content and changes to the old content added to the article. The lead is concise, not over detailed and includes and includes and introductory sentence that clearly describes the articles topic. All major sections are mentioned.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content evaluation

The content added is relevant to the topic and the content is mostly up to date. Some content is fairly dated but was already present in the article. All content seems to belong.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation

The content added is neutral there is no bias towards a certain side. The viewpoints seem to be equally represented.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Check a few links. Do they work? Sources and references evaluation

The content is backed up by scholarly sources and any non scholarly sources have been removed by the student. The sources reflect available literature on the topic and most are current but some are dated. The links to the articles seem to work fine.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Organization evaluation

The article is very well written, it is broken into well titled sections which makes it easy to read and follow. No grammatical or spelling errors were noted.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation

The article only contains one image it could use more or maybe a video to help show the behavior. The one photo used is captioned poorly, however, it helps enhance the understanding of the topic by showing the behavior.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Overall evaluation

The quality of the article was improved a lot from the contributions of the student. The strengths of the article are that it is very well broken down and has a lot of scholarly sources. The article could be improved by adding more media to it.