User:Cjlewis1204/Eastern hognose snake/OTatro 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?

Cjlewis1204

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cjlewis1204/Eastern hognose snake
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Eastern hognose snake

Evaluate the drafted changes

Overall, you did a fantastic job!

Lead: I like how you added to the lead after you added information to the article, but it is still concise and gives readers a summary of the article. You could consider adding that humans are threatening the survival of the eastern hog-nosed snake since you wrote a good amount about it, and it is important for readers to know.

Content: The content that you added is definitely relevant, and it doesn't seem like anything is missing. A couple of your references are a little bit old (2003 and 2005), but if those are the best sources and there are not any newer sources that contradict their information, I think that it is okay.

Tone and Balance: I didn't notice any controversial topics in your article; it sounded neutral and very scientific.

Sources and References: In some places it looks like you don't have citations for all of your content because you wrote a few sentences and then cited a source at the end. I am sure that you got your information from your sources, but you could make that more clear by saying according to [this source] and then writing about it. An example of this would be in your Captivity paragraph. You could add "According to Healey (2020)," to the beginning. The Description and Etymology section does not have any citations. I know a previous author wrote most of it, but you could look for sources to back up some of that information. I thought that you had a good range of sources, but you could always add more if you's like. I found one from the Biological Science Collection database called "Habitat Associations of the Eastern Hognose Snake at the Northern Edge of its Geographic Distribution: Should a Remnant Population Guide Restoration?"

Organization: Your article is pretty much well written and definitely very well organized. I noticed just a few sentences that you could change:

"Their habitats also include both southeastern and midwestern woodlands and tall-grassland prairies. They have often been found in grassy fields or cultivated fields along woodland edges." could be written as "Their habitats include southeastern and midwestern woodlands, tall-grassland prairies, and grassy or cultivated fields along woodland edges."

"Because there is such a wide range the snake is found" just needs a "where" after "range" and a comma at the end.

"In northern climates hibernation comes earlier and begins late September-October whereas in southern climates the snake might not retreat until November." needs commas after both "climates" and "in" before "late".

"Humans cause pollution..." You could say something like "Humans affect these snakes by..." or "Humans affect these snakes in the following ways:..". "Cause" just sounds a little strange when you have "intentional hunting" in the list.

"Laura E. Robson and Gabriel Blouin-Demers..." I am not sure if you need a date here or not.

"H. platirhinos is a very mildly venomous species that's effects aren't deadly." Could be "The venom of H. platirhinos is very mild, and its effects are not deadly."

"The hognose snake is an intermediate level reptile to keep and live between 10-15 years in captivity." Could be "Hognose snakes are intermediate level reptiles to keep and live between 10-15 years in captivity." or "The hognose snake is an intermediate level reptile to keep and lives between 10-15 years in captivity."

"With hognose being a toad specialist species..." and "Being a solitary species..." just need commas after "species".

I know it looks like a lot of changes, but they are all very slight changes. Let me know if you have any questions about my suggestions. Overall, your article was well-written :)

Images and Media: I love your plan to add in images.

Overall: You have done a lot to improve this article so far. You added a lot of good information and kept the article neutral. There are just a few sentences that you could re-word, but I don't have any major edits that I think you should make.

Great job and good luck!