User:Babamachine/Eastern coyote/JonStark22 Peer Review

Peer review

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?
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?

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they 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?

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 for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Babamachine

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Babamachine/Eastern_coyote?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Eastern coyote

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead[edit]

1. Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Current draft has not made any changes to the lead, would suggest to make a note of that to update the lead in respective to the added information.

Going into your first paragraph it might be the case where the lead may not need to be changed since first paragraph was continuation/explanation of what the article was already discussing with the DNA of the Eastern coyote.

For the second paragraph where you begin a whole new topic about the habitats i would suggest a stronger lead to begin the new topic. If you look at the article paragraph on Food you will notice a clear and more encompassing lead sentence to the one you have. Instead of going straight into giving measurements on their dens maybe give a more general description of where their habitats tend to be or even start off by discussing that they usually only frequently use their dens for raising pups.

Content[edit]

1. Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The first paragraph is the continuation of what the article was discussing based on the DNA of the eastern coyote making it very relevant to the topic. Although i believe some more information can be added to make the information about their chromosomes easier to understand for the general audience.

The second paragraph discussing habitats was also relevant to the topic of the Eastern coyotes, it was quite interesting learning about the male presence while raising the pups. I wonder if during your research if you came across any information that would maybe differentiate the den of a Eastern coyote compared to its relatives in the west or among wolves to further prove the hybridization of these animals.

2. Is the content added up-to-date?

The reference provided for the first paragraph was from a research in 2013 which is fairly up to date considering this topic is most likely not extensively researched. The references for the habitat paragraphs were from 1984 and 2001 which i would consider not up to date but yet again this topic may not be greatly researched especially when considering something as habitat.

3. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I don't believe there is anything missing from the content, i do believe further explanation can be done on the information added regarding their DNA. All content seems relevant so i don't think anything does not belong.

4. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No not really.

Tone and Balance[edit]

1.Is the content added neutral?

The content added seems to be neutral, most information is just facts about the DNA makeup of the Eastern coyote and discussing the habitats. The only place i can see where tone can be seen to be not neutral is when discussing the male presence during the development of the pups, it almost seems like your down playing their role a little bit.

2. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

i believe something that is underrepresented during the habitat paragraph is how long the puppies take to fully develop and when they become full independent. Also for the chromosome paragraph i would discuss what a haplotype is and how that relates to the hybridization of the Eastern coyotes.

3. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

I believe the content added is simply facts the editor has taken out from various reliable sources that add useful information to the current article not attempting to persuade readers into anything.

Sources and References[edit]

1.Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

All content regarding the the DNA of the Eastern coyote was backed up from a reliable peer-reviewed article that was properly linked. The content regarding the habitats of the Eastern coyote was also backed up from two different sources, both sources were also peer-reviewed articles. This ensures that all information should be quite reliable.

2.Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

For the first resource regarding habitats the cited sources go into detail about the range of the Eastern coyote population as well as their seasonal time of using their dens, usually only during the winter and during breeding season, which supports the content added. The second source discusses the roles in which the mother, father and the pack play in raising their pups which verifies what the content says. The resource cited about the information of the Y chromosome and genetic markers of the Eastern coyotes is discussed in the reference and supports the content.

3. Are sources current?

The source regarding DNA is pretty current, it is the other two sources pertaining habitat written in 2001 and 1984 may need to be looked at to see if more current information could be used.

Organization[edit]

1.Is the content added well-written?

I believe the content is clear concise and straight to the facts so i would definitely say it is well-written. For the second paragraph the first two sentences are both quite short and not very descriptive of what the rest of the paragraph will discuss. Also seems like habitat information was overlapping with reproduction of the Eastern coyote which could have maybe even been its own subheading. Again i would add a better lead sentence for the habitat paragraph.

2.Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are a few mistakes with capitalization of certain words, specifically when using the word "Eastern coyote" and "Gray wolf" and many other animals, since they are names of animals they should be capitalized, a mistake i see a lot in the original article itself. When using lain terminology for animals since it is in a language other then the one being used it should be italicized.

Overall Impressions[edit]

Overall i really thought the information you added to the Eastern coyotes was very interesting, adding a new subheading for habitats is completing something missing from the topic but i believe more information about their dens compared to the other coyotes and wolves discussed in the article. I also really enjoyed the added proof you put in for the DNA of the Eastern coyote. Although it was kind of confusing why your added proof suggest that the Eastern coyote is hybrid and i believe using your source you can add a few sentences there that would really strengthen the information you presented. The information about the roles the males and other pack members have on the development of the puppies was also very insightful and i believe more can be added to this topic as well maybe comparing their habits to other coyote populations or compared to how wolves handle their youth.