User:Annabellebeaton/Giant Pacific octopus/Gabrodi Peer Review

General info
User:Annabellebeaton
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Giant Pacific octopus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Lead
The lead gives a nice overview of the species, with some brief information about its taxonomic information and spatial distribution. It does not have every component of the new content added by my peers who edited this paper (nothing about movement patterns, range, cliamte change impacts, or reproduction). These topics could be added, however they may also be a little too specific for the lead. I think a brief statement of climate change impacts could make the lead more effective, as this is a crucial issue facing most marine species.

Content
The content added is very relevant to the topic. Overall, this page has a wealth of really valuable information. I believe it provides a really detailed overview of the species, and the subsections' content spans most things people would want to know about it. The only thing that I could notice that may be missing is some information about mate selection and attraction. Is there a specific way these octopuses find/choose a mate? Do they have specific methods for attracting that mate? Do males mate more than once in their life? I was also wonder if they employ any tactics to avoid being fed upon by prey (i.e. information about their use of ink, potential camouflage, etc.) Overall, however, there's a lot of great content here.

Tone and Balance
The piece maintains a neutral tone throughout. I cannot determine any attempt to sway readers one way or another. It is overall very informative.

Sources and References
A few sentences throughout the piece have a citation stating "citation needed." If these sentences were added by you guys - is there a way you can put those sources in? If not, could you attempt to find a source that supports these facts, to make the article more complete? There are over 40 references from a range of dates and authors, I therefore believe the page was really thoroughly researched and has made use of many effective sources.

Organization
The piece is really well-organized, with many subsections that make reading it and finding specific information very easy. It starts broad, with a description, then moves into more specifics like spatial distribution and ecological role. I like that it ends with conservation and climate change, to kind of sum up how everything previously discussed will be impacted by this.

Overall Impression
This is a really great Wikipedia page, one that has only been accentuated by your additions. I am really impressed by the amount of information you have been able to add, and the total amount offered by the page. There's not much I think needs changing beyond minor things.