User talk:Zh3538/Woodpecker finch/Emily.Connors Peer Review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Whose work are  you reviewing? (provide username): Zh3538

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zh3538/articledraft

Personal Comments:

It should be pointed out that neither the title or lead section of this mention or refer to animal behaviour. The title (as written currently) is "Woodpecker finch", suggesting that the piece will simply discuss various aspects of the biology of this animal. don't think that the lead or the title of the article really discuss animal behaviour to any extent. For an article focusing on behaviour, only two behaviours are mentioned, one in great detail, taking up 50% of the article, and the other appearing beneath, totalling roughly 25% of the paper. Diet is mentioned last, which is unrelated to behaviour, and provides only a minimal description about the foraging habits of the woodpecker finch. More work is needed to organize the structure of the article, to make sure that ideas flow nicely together, and that all topics discussed incorporate some mention of animal behaviour.

Evaluations for each sub-heading will be scored on a scale of 1-5.

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not really. The Lead was left the same, for the most part.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence effectively introduces the topic of the article by providing necessary information regarding taxonomy and habitat of the species of interest.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? In my opinion, the Lead is still very weak. It only restates what was said in the Lead section of the original article. Very little was added or changed in the Lead, and it still appears to be lacking a lot of information about the woodpecker finch.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does. There was no mention about the reproductive behaviour of diet of the woodpecker finch in the Lead section, yet both subtopics are discussed as the focal points of the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the Lead is lacking a lot of important information about the animal's behaviour. It restates everything mentioned from the first Lead, shows no mention of any behaviour, besides tool use, and does not lead the reader to think that the article is about the behaviour of the Woodpecker finch.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The article has only 3 paragraphs, two of which show only a superficial understanding for the reproductive behaviour and diet of the woodpecker finch, and a very large paragraph about tool use which regularly strays off topic. The content is thus partially relevant to the topic, as only half of the article truly discusses behaviour.
• Is the content added up-to-date? All of the listed content comes from sources dates 10-20 years before present day. Three of the citations lack a date of publication, and need to be revised.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In my opinion, there is a lot of lacking content, and some that does not belong. The article doesn't show any particular focus on behavioural profile of the woodpecker finch. Instead, it seems like a very brief introduction to the animal's general biology, including a paragraph dedicated to the diet of the bird. More work needs to go into developing a full behavioural profile for the woodpecker finch, including pertinent subjects like courtship behaviour, mate selection, agonistic behaviour, etc.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? I would agree that the content listed here is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article states facts.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As mentioned previously, I feel there is a lot of information missing about the animal's behaviour, which was intended to be the focus of the article.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are a lot of citations missing throughout the article. A lot of the claims seem to be based on conjecture, due to the lack of embedded citations.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I would have to say no.
• Are the sources current? Not really.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Some do and some do not.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? In my opinion, there are a few noteworthy issues regarding the way the content is written. There are some major issues with sentence structure, article structure and organization, throughout the article. The article lacks any real flow, and some sentences seem unrelated to others preceding and following them.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few grammatical errors, a couple spelling mistakes, and some sentences that don't make sense the way they are written. Further revision of the content is advised!
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, only two types of behaviour were discussed, along with the animal's dietary information, and the author focused much more heavily on one behaviour than anything else. Organization needs to improvement, and the content needs more sections reflecting other behaviours of the woodpecker finch.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has one photo, taken from the original article, which started with 2 images. I would suggest at least keeping both of the original article's photos to ensure that the article is enhanced with visuals.
• Are images well-captioned? The full caption of the bird's common and latin name. To the point, reflects the title.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There's only one, and its right at the top of the page.

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? Does not represent all available literature, as there is only 7 sources listed, 3 more than the original article.
• 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? Very minimal use of inboxes, section headings and other features seen in published articles.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not at all.

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The only significant contribution, besides some minor editing and sentence restructuring from the original article, is rather large section discussing the bird's tendency to use tools as part of its foraging behaviour (which was not emphasized) and a comparatively smaller paragraph that briefly mentions the species' reproductive behaviour. While the contribution has improved the article, I think more work needs to be done to emphasize the behavioural aspects discussed in the article.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The tool use section describes a very important, notable behavioural adaptation of woodpecker finches, which sets them apart from other bird species, especially those belonging to Darwin's group of finches. While entirely relevant, the article should either be renamed to account for the heavy focus on tool use as a foraging strategy, or more content should be added to reflect the numerous other behavioural characteristics of the woodpecker finch.
• How can the content added be improved? The article needs further revision to adjust the structural elements of the article, the grammar, the sentence flow and the content itself, which should be more focused the behavioural traits of this bird.

~~~~