User:Bamcclure18/Substances Poisonous to Dogs/Lizrileymga 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? Bamcclure18
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bamcclure18/Substances Poisonous to Dogs

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• 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? No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise...but quote in lead is not necessary.

Lead evaluation

The quote in the lead doesn't really add to the lead and could be left out. The lead could also be expanded to further identify more of the content in the article.

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

Content evaluation

As far as my knowledge of the topic, it seems to be well-covered and up-to-date.

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? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

Tone and balance have no problems.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not sure
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

The reference list is good, but there are parts of the article that are missing citations. The citations that are in the article do not appear to use SFN (shortened footnotes).

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? In some areas yes, but in others it appears more editing should be done.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes..a few grammatical errors
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No

Organization evaluation

Sections beginning with "substances" are a little confusing.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Some images included.
• Are images well-captioned? Images are not all captioned.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Images and media evaluation

Images could be much larger and all of them need captioned.

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? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I have no idea.
• 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? Article doesn't contain any infoboxes.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

New Article Evaluation

Article would benefit from more links

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

This article is a good beginning. It would benefit from some more copyediting and re-arranging of sections. It would also benefit from adding links and larger images.