User:Jtsai09/Vernon Reynolds/Cami.fisher 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) Jtsai09
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jtsai09/Vernon Reynolds

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? It is concise, and could use a bit more

Lead evaluation

The lead seems to remain unchanged from the published article, and is concise yet could use more information on Vernon's accomplishments such as founding the Conservation center. It could summarize some of the later mentioned accomplishments, such as 'discovered varied cultural norms between chimpanzee populations.'

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 informative and intriguing. It is relevant and rightly focuses on Vernon's work, for which he is known. It could include an 'implications' section which shows how Vernon's research allowed for more discoveries or theories to be made.

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

This article is well balanced and does not seem to persuade the reader to adopt any particular position.

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

Sources 1 and 2 come directly from the Udongo conservation center. You would do well to back up the info from these sources with another, secondary source. Perhaps an account from one of Vernon's contemporaries. Sources are well updated. 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

Content is well-written and easy to read. There is minimal jargon. The content is well organized. I would love to learn more about Vernon's research.

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?

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

You have added far more information to this article and it is all beneficial to anyone who wants to learn more about this researcher and their contributions to biological anthropology. I liked the detailed description of Vernon's involvement in creating the conservation and his motivation to do so. Perhaps you could talk more about the situation surrounding chimpanzee poaching and accidental deaths that warranted the conservation center.