User:TanishaT/Cooperative breeding/Mjsalnic 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? (TanishaT)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:TanishaT/Cooperative breeding

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Lead reflects new content, the new Mammals section, including humans
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Introductory sentence is concise, describes the evolutionary origins of cooperative breeding in mammals. It might be re-structured, to begin with, an overview of cooperative breeding in mammals, the lineages that have it and then its evolutionary origins, transitions, etc. All of this is already in the first paragraph.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it includes major sections
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, there is a complete new section for humans
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise. It has relevant information.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? It is relevant, the original article does not include cooperative breeding in humans, or a specific section for mammals
• Is the content added up-to-date? yes, oldest papers are from 2010
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Overall, all the included content belong to the article.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Overall, the content is neutral
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the content is about facts, it is not pretending to induce any biased 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? No, it shows only information

It does not seem that there is any bias, but as 3 of the references are from the same authors, it might be important to include more information from other labs. At least in the first part of the new section

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Information come from primary literature as well as from books.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current? there are between 2006 to 2017
• Check a few links. Do they work? The links works

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? "genera" instead of Genus, and maybe prepositions need to be reviewed
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Article new sections are well-organized.

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? The article is more complete with the added information, humans section and the evolutionary aspects of cooperative breeding in mammals improve the article
• What are the strengths of the content added? The way that a lot of information is presented in a concise paragraphs, easy to read.
• How can the content added be improved? The content has terms that might not be known by the public. Those terms have their own wiki page, you can add the links, this will help to have a better understanding of the content. For example: Grandmother hypothesis, Altriciality.. etc. I also think it would be good for the article to expand a little more in the human section. Maybe, dividing the paragraphs into different pieces and develop each one a little more

Overall evaluation

Overall, I think your contributions will be a great improvement for this article. It looks more complete and with interesting information. It would be interesting to include more examples of cooperative breeding in mammals as it seems is present in more lineages.

~~~~