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? Jordanviv02
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jordanviv02/Hummingbird

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?

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? yes, it is just facts that are stated.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no you had a really good balance.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes, your first source did not open though on the page.
• Are the sources current? yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? both of the authors are reliable and the research was scientific.
• Check a few links. Do they work? your first one does not

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes! you did a really good job at not over complicating it.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? not sure were you would add it to the article, but the sound and vocal learning section might be a good place.

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?

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?

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe so it added information that was not taken about yet.
• What are the strengths of the content added? To me it is pretty strong you cited everything and added valuable information.
• How can the content added be improved? I think it is good the way it is.