User:Zh3538/Woodpecker finch/TOliver9712 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? Zh3538
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zh3538/articledraft

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

- User has added "Reproductive Behaviour" section but does not address reproduction in the lead.

- Introductory sentence is clear and concise.

- The lead does not include any description of the main sections.

- The lead includes information on habitat, as well as migratory behaviours, that are not touched upon elsewhere in the article. Habitat is however mentioned briefly in the "Tool Use" section and should be expanded upon.

- The Lead section, though concise, is lacking in size. This section could benefit from more information that summarizes the main sections they are working on.

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

- All major sections added are relevant to discussing the woodpecker finch.

- Content and references are relatively up to date.

- More content could be added to the "Diet" and "Reproduction" sections. There is also mention of a species of crow, which, despite being a sufficient comparison, takes away from description of the woodpecker finch.

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

- All content is neutral.

- No content appears biased.

- No content is used to persuade.

- The mention of migration in the lead is not represented at all in the article. Behaviour of woodpecker finches in differing environments could be touched upon as well.

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

- Most if not all content appears to be backed with secondary sources. A few of those are public domain websites so they may not be reliable, but the rest appear to be peer-reviewed journals.

- There are less than 10 references in the entire article, and some of these are re-used throughout. However, each of them reflects the available literature.

- The sources are relatively current.

- Each of the links work.

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

- There are some grammatical errors, but spelling appears fine.

- Two new sections have been added. Reproduction could perhaps be broken down into female and male displays, procedures, etc.

- Content appears organized into their relevant sections.

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

- One image that was already in use in the main article was moved and enlarged in the user's draft. It is on the left of the article when most images are added to the right. This seems quite out of place, and the image should be removed as it is already in an appropriate space in the main article.

- The image adheres to regulations since it was already in the mani article.

- Image is well-captioned, and reflects the appearance of the bird.

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?

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

- Despite the new content added the article still seems incomplete, perhaps due to the limited information provided in some sections. Information that is absent altogether could probably improve the overall article.

- The added content gives some more background into the means of reproduction and diet in woodpecker finches. Tool use information is also better organized than before.

- The user should attempt to bulk up their lead, diet and reproduction sections. Also, a thorough read of the entire article is recommended to find areas where sentence structure can be improved.