User:Vpritchard/User:Vpritchard/Foxhound/Bradyamcevoy 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)
  • Vpritchard
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Vpritchard/Foxhound

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, but needs to be fixed up to function as a lead. Just adding an article title and maybe separating some of the information in the first paragraph out into other sections
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Kind of, it should be more introductory instead of jumping right into the information
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Not really
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • A little overly detailed. Just think about separating some of the information you have out into other sections

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No

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

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Common causes of death could probably include a little more information, if only to lead into the next section more smoothly (respiratory disease section)
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, generally. Disposition definitely needs a source and there could be another source after the first section of the respiratory disease section
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes

• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, but I would say in disposition you could use simpler language. "unbreakably mirthful" doesn't sound very encyclopedic, even though its an awesome description
• 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?
  • The first paragraphs need to be broken up a little more. Really just making a very clear lead section would help a lot and then an overview of Foxhounds right after

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?
  • Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Seems very detailed, feels like as much information as I could want about foxhounds
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Filling out common causes of death and disposition could be helpful, as well as just general organizing