User:Angelllllmoore/Deep-sea gigantism/MitchG265 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? Angelllllmoore
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: There is no bibliography or sandbox draft.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * 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? The lead says "The inaccessibility of abyssal habitats has hindered the study of this topic" but that fact is not mentioned or alluded to anywhere else in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It lacks detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? No content has been added
 * Is the content added up-to-date? N/A
 * 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? I'm not sure if that applies to this article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No biases seem to be at play.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all explanations are equally discussed.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it just talks about possible explanations for gigantism, back up by scientific evidence where possible.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, most references are scientific papers.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? For the most part yes
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? N/A
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? N/A

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? I think so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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? N/A
 * What are the strengths of the content added? N/A
 * How can the content added be improved? Some info could be added to the "Explanations" section, also maybe some pictures of the example organisms in the "Taxonomic Range" section.