User talk:SophiaGibbons/Emotion in animals/Bibliography

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): SophiaGibbons Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SophiaGibbons/Emotion_in_animals/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography

Personal Comment: I believe you posted your edits to the article on your bibliography page instead of in your sandbox, which made it tricky to access. This review also was supposed to be in the talk page of the drafted edit, which happens to be on your bibliography.

Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not at all. The lead in the original article is the same lead on the drafted revision, which still needs revision.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I think the first issue with the article is that the heading over the Lead says the article is about emotions in non-human animals, suggesting a focus on every animal excluding humans, while the actual of the article is "Emotions in animals", which does not exclude humans. This should be updated because it realistically changes the full context of the article. Next, the first sentence of the Lead, titled "Emotions in non-human animals", makes as much mention of emotions in humans as it does animals. If the article is going to be based on the emotions of non-human animals, introduce that topic only, without mention of emotions in humans.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It covers some, but not all of the major sections discussed in the article.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is not detailed enough, in my opinion, and could do with some revision on sentence structure.

Lead evaluation = 2

Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? The contribution is absolutely relevant to the topic.

Is the content added up-to-date? Only two sources were used to supplement the new content, both of which are papers published from a range of dates? I believe the references were done incorrectly, as there should not be a range of dates spanning 9 years as the "date of publication".

Is there content missing or content that does not belong? The original article was actually pretty detailed and should not have been chosen for revision, in my opinion, as there was sufficient information included in the original article. If anything, all the original needed was some revision to improve word choice, grammar, etc. This user's contribution seems very minimal, including a half paragraph about vocalization, which is very similar to the original, and a poorly worded section about the neurological aspects of behaviour in non-human animals. The user uses words incorrectly, the sentences lack any discernible meaning, there are only three added citations, all belonging to the same paper, and I feel as though there was not much truly contributed to the original.

Content evaluation = 2

Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes the content added is neutral.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the statements are not biased.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Definitely many underrepresented viewpoints.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? Not at all.

Tone and balance evaluation = 3

Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. Only one reference is used as part of the user's contribution, and the source is referenced incorrectly.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Absolutely not. There are only two sources used to add one section of information to the original article. Definitely did not use all available literature. The two references also seem very general, and not at all targeted on any true example. They appear to be papers that give a sweeping overview of emotion in non-human animals, rather than any real comprehensive study on behaviour.

Are the sources current? No.

Check a few links. Do they work? No.

Sources and references evaluation = 1

Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? At the risk of being offensive, I don't think the contribution was really a reflection of any effort. The sentences are poorly written and include a number of spelling, grammatical and structural errors that don't seem to reflect much research.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Plenty.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The major contribution to the revised article was one paragraph, written, poorly, as block text.

Organization evaluation = 2

Images and Media Guiding questions:

If your peer added images or media Peer added no images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The original article did, this user added no images.

Are images well-captioned? N/A

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation = 0

Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It is more complete in the sense that there are more words in the word count, but the recent, proposed contribution is very poorly written, referenced incorrectly, and doesn't make sense. I wouldn't suggest using it.

What are the strengths of the content added? The added content attempts to provide a more complete understanding of the neurological aspect of the scientific study of non-human animals.

How can the content added be improved? By putting effort into research on the topic of behaviour in non-human animals.

Overall evaluation = 2

Emily.Connors (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)