User:Rhin0771/Traffic (conservation programme)/Ungulate01 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Rhin0771

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Rhin0771/Traffic (conservation programme)

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Traffic (conservation programme)

Evaluate the drafted changes

My main question while evaluating was if any changes were made to any sections before the section "Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP), 2007"? All sources labeled 1-19 list a retrieved date of before 2023. If no edits were made to those sections, then please remove them from your sandbox. If changes were made, finding a way to make them stand out, such as bolding them, would be very helpful.

Under "Wildlife Trafficking", the first subheading needs to be capitalized throughout. Additionally, the article is moving into a longer paragraph format and should be formatted as such. The sentence "There are only three other trafficking rings that rank above illegal wildlife trade, those being drugs, humans, and weapons." needs a citation.

There are multiple sentences throughout the sections (starting with the "ISSC-MAP" section, as that and beyond is what I'm assuming you wrote from scratch) that need a comma or two added, or a word changed. I would suggest reading through slowly and making sure there are commas where there is a natural, or needed, pause. I wish I could comment directly onto your draft where they are needed. Additionally, several sentences could use citations, even if the following sentence has a citation from the same source.

The subheading "Recent Programs since 2017" does need to be capitalized throughout. That subsection could be expanded as well.

You clearly put a lot of work into this article, definitely improved it, and it is well written and neutral. I like that you reorganized and changed the headers of "Achievements" and "Recent Operations". I recommend deleting any section or subsection that you did not edit from your sandbox as it is hard to tell what your contributions are without constantly going back and forth between your sandbox and current article. Good work.

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead has not been updated, but I do not believe it needs to be.

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The "Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network" is a bit puzzling since it is bolded and not quite clear what it is. Is it another name for the TRAFFIC program?

• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead does not list out the sections or directly name them, yet still provides a nice overview.

• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.

• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes. Some of the added content is on additional programs from TRAFFIC and the rest is on wildlife trafficking. Since TRAFFIC's main focus is wildlife trafficking, going into further detail ties in well with this article.

• Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, all but two of the added sources are from the late 2010s to early 2020s. Both anti-poaching patrol groups mentioned formed relatively recently.

• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No, my only suggestion is that it would be nice to include more anti-poaching patrols and more information about how poaching and wildlife trade are done for survival in other parts of the world, rather than just the African continent.

• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The added subsection of "Community Impacts" addresses how both poaching and anti-poaching are intertwined with society, specifically focusing on the continent of Africa. Typically, the reasons for poaching are painted as being driven by Indigenous and traditional medicines. This subsection also points out that poaching occurs due to people needing food and money, thus removing some of the villainization that is typically placed on Indigenous people and their beliefs when poaching and wildlife trade is discussed. If there is information on how poaching and anti-poaching is part of society in other parts of the world, such as South America, that would be a good addition to the article.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?

Yes, I do not feel influenced to either support or oppose TRAFFIC.

• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, the article explains different programs that have been created fully or in part by TRAFFIC, but also highlights how wildlife trade is done for survival by some people.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, the added material includes different programs and reports that have had contributions by TRAFFIC. The article also includes why people poach, giving the article a nice balance.

• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, it is neutral.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, all new content is from peer reviewed articles. The trade review is the only one I am unsure about being peer reviewed and it is published by TRAFFIC, WWF, and the IUCN.

• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes, material is summarized from the sources effectively.

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, the sources include a trade report, multiple articles focusing on different aspects of wildlife trafficking, and an article on how the type of crime network is determined for illegal wildlife trade schemes.

• Are the sources current?

Only one source is from the late 1990s and it is a very thorough report that is still relevant.

• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The majority of the authors are working in the US. A decent amount of the authors have feminine names. Diversity in race and ethnicity cannot be determined.

• 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.)

All but one are peer reviewed (that source may be peer reviewed as well). There are no references to random websites or news in the added material.

• Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links for sources 20-28 are functional. I did not test links 1-19 as I believe there are from previous authors.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Overall, the content is well written. There are several sentences throughout where a comma or two should be added as the sentences are long. Additionally, there are a couple spots where word choice may need to be changed for an easier read.

• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are not spelling or grammatical areas, except where some sentences could use additional commas.

• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the added content is well organized and some previous content was shifted for a better layout.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• 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

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? N/A
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
• 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? N/A
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, the article is more complete and thorough. The information on wildlife trafficking fits in nicely.

• What are the strengths of the content added?

The added content was thoroughly researched and the author summarized the research well.

• How can the content added be improved?

I recommend rereading through slowly to reveal where natural pauses occur and adding commas to those spots. Also, adding commas where it would make the content clearer.