User:Gil6362/Big cat/Vanessa R Garcia 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? Gil6362
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Big cat

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes the lead reflects the content and sections presented in the article.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the lead is clear about the definition of Big Cat and thus the subject of the rest of the article.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes, the lead introduces the main topics.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The lead does not contain irrelevant information.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is very concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the information pertains to the sections which pertain to the lead, and thus the article topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, much of the content is from within the last decade.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • If anything, this article may benefit from a section describing the general ecology of big cats; more of an explication about their niches and even the significance of big cats as symbols in art/history.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • No this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content is neutral and factual. Very objective tone.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, all of the claims are very straightforward and do not appear biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The last sentence in the Roaring section could probably use an elaboration and definitely a citation because it is not cited.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, it is basic information not presented in any kind of persuasive or argumentative tone.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • There are some statements that lack a source of secondary information.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes, there is a range of sources from different disciplines and on a range of topics as well.
• Are the sources current?
  • Some of the sources are about 20 years old, but the bulk of them are from within the last decade.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes, there seem to sources written by people from various countries/cultures around the world.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • I checked 5 random links that worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The content is very veryyy straightforward. This article was exceptionally easy to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, the content is broken into categories that are relevant the main subject.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes, there are photos of some major cat species and also a phylogeny which is really helpful in understanding the relation of big cats to one another.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Some of the images of different species could use informative captions.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • This might be questionable, I don't see citations for the photos.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • The layout is a little awkward.

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? *Yes, the article is more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The new content adds depth where some sections were shallow before.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • It can be expanded upon in the evolution section and conservation section still and perhaps a few more relevant sections added.