User:Alhost7/Greenland shark/Blueocean87 Peer Review

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Alhost7 and Gcicione
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Alhost7/Greenland shark and Greenland shark

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? not yet, but adding something about diet sounds like a good ideae
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead seems to serve its purpose well. The edits suggested by Alhost7 seem like good edits to add

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I think especially adding the point about conservation
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, they found new references
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel like adding the part about de-finning wouldn't be overtly political?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, discussing the cultural importance to the Inuit people

Content evaluation
I think the article is already well organized with quality content, and I think that the suggested edits will be helpful ways to make each section stronger.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The article has good tone and balance. I don't think adding a section about shark de-finning practices would be too political and could be written about neutrally.

Sources and References
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
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not sure
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Quality and updated sources, and a lot of sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I found
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The suggestion to add a conservation section seems like a good idea, but overall the article already has really good section headers.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The only suggestion I have would be to add a more anatomy based image of the shark, and to maybe make the pictures bigger if that's possible?

For New Articles Only
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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The new content that is planning on being added will make the article more comprehensive and include more updated information and better rephrasing.
 * How can the content added be improved? The new section suggestions seem good to me!

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think this article is pretty good to begin with, and the suggested edits will only make it better by adding more relevant information. Great work!