User:Alhost7/Greenland shark/Cemacquarrie 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
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Alhost7/Greenland shark

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No edits made to lead, but I don't see any major edits that need to be made in this section.
 * 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, everything included in the lead is covered in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I would say that the lead contains all of the necessary information (giving a good overview of the article) without being overly wordy.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, relevant statistic added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the source used was from 2017.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that it could helpful to add more on Greenland shark phylogeny (maybe a visual of their evolutionary history/relation to other species?).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

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.

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, it seems that majority of the sources are recent.
 * There is one older source (from 1961) that was a reference for a hypothesis about copepod bioluminescence that hadn't yet been verified; maybe an updated paper/source about this topic could be added because there might have been an update since then.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

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?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

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


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

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 statistic added was really helpful and did a good job of giving more information about Greenland shark reproduction that was previously missing from the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I don't think that the content added thus far needs to be improved!