User:Clairebriar/Comparative cognition/SpookyIsland 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

Whose work are you reviewing?

Peer review of user Clairebriar by user SpookyIsland

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

Evaluate the drafted changes

The lead section has not been updated to reflect the extensive amounts of new content added to the article. However, this can be easily accounted for by adding a few sentences stating the key contributors to comparative cognition and a brief description of their corresponding work. Furthermore, a sentence or two outlining the “model organisms” section of the body should be added to the lead section as well.

In terms of content, I think both the “key contributors” and “model organisms” sections added to the article are relevant to the topic. However, most of the added “key contributors” are not modern examples; maybe, you could add a section that represents modern-day contributors to comparative cognition. Then, there would be a balance between past and present views on comparative cognition! Also, it may be beneficial to add more WikiLinks throughout your article. That way, readers can explore your topic more in-depth by relating it to other Wikipedia articles! For example, WikiLink “Corvids” because some readers may not know what they are.

The tone of the content is neutral, and there is no evidence of bias towards a particular position. The edited work is objective and simply states factual information that does not overrepresent/underrepresent one specific viewpoint.

The sources utilized in the article are reliable sources of information, such as research articles from accredited, peer-reviewed journals, such as The Psychological Review: Series of Monograph Supplements and the International Journal of Primatology. In addition, the sources’ information aligns with the information that was provided in the edited article. However, I think other sources could be used to fortify certain aspects of the article. For example, regarding the “key contributors” section, you may be able to find some modern-day review articles that analyze the work of these contributors and provide new interpretations. Also, regarding the “model organisms” section, it may be of interest to fortify the individual sections with more references; for example, there is only one reference used for both the “corvids” and “rodents” sections. Although there are only twelve references, the sources are written by a diverse array of authors from various journals. However, none of the links work for any of the citations, and many of them lack a link or a DOI, to begin with. Consider adding these components into your citations; without them, it is difficult for readers to find the source you are trying to refer to. Lastly, I think you may be citing incorrectly. From my knowledge, the citation goes after the sentence. For example, “I am peer-reviewing your article.[1]” not “I am peer-reviewing your article[1].”. But I could be wrong.

Regarding organization, the article is beautifully written and highly concise and easy to read. After thoroughly reading the article, I could not find any grammatical errors or spelling mistakes! In addition, the main points of the article are very well organized and flow very smoothly. The two new sections, “key contributors” and “model organisms,” provide sufficient information and help explain the topic of comparative cognition through historical experiments and the animals that comprise these experiments!

The images included within the article are utilized perfectly and enhance the understanding of their associated topic. In addition, I think the photos are well-captioned, as they explain the image concisely but effectively. Lastly, the images are laid out appealingly, and they adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. They are great additions!

To conclude, I think the added content has vastly improved the overall quality of the article. The article is more complete and successfully gives insight into the topic of comparative cognition. The content added has strengths in many areas, including but not limited to conciseness, readability, and informativity. However, I think the addition of more citations and more WikiLinks would improve an already near-perfect edit!