User:Mkarasik/Burmese python/John.waswill 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?

Mkarasik

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Mkarasik/Burmese python
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Burmese python

Evaluate the drafted changes

The lead has not been altered but offers a concise introduction to the article and topic at hand without accurately describes the Burmese Python and the problems it poses, but could include a quick introduction on the large abundance of them in captivity which was the source of the invasive issues.

The content added all was relevant information to the information at hand and all up to date, however, the 3rd link in the citations, the "Photo in the News: Python Bursts After Eating Gator" did not work for me. No content that was added seems to be out of place, and I feel it does meet the equity gaps regarding Wiki as there is a very neutral tone to the article and information added. There is no signs of opiniated responses or unreliable sources and the added information on digestion and the conservation efforts being taken in the native regions comparatively to the efforts being taken in their invasive ranges very much adds to the article, providing new information on the topic. However, the 2nd paragraph of information in the diet section should be incorporated into the invasive species section of the article as it is describing the effect it has on the ecosystem based upon its diet.

The sources are all current and provide reliable information, all but the 3rd citation work for me. The sources came from a variety of places, all which I felt a strong sense of credibility. All new information added has been properly cited and linked within the paragraphs of the article and there was not any images added to the article, maybe add a picture of a python eating an alligator or one that has invaded a home or something like that to show how severity of the problem?

Overall it is a very well written and properly incorporated the new information into the article, with the two things being slightly adding to the introduction about conservation and moving the 2nd paragraph of the diet section to the invasive species part to better suit the information in the section rather than what its diet does to the surrounding ecosystem.