User:Annakhl/Threetooth puffer/Enfried15 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Annakhl and gnbussq12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Annakhl/sandbox/Threetooth_puffer
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threetooth_puffer

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall impressions

Your article is very good and did a really good job improving the stub! There are a lot of good pictures as well as very informative on your species. I am not sure if this was all the information you could find on the species but adding a few more sentences would help to strengthen your article.

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead is very informational. I think it is better how you took parts of the original lead and broke it up into different headings to better separate the information. This makes it more helpful to the readers.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes! Everything added helps to expand on the original article and gives much more interesting detail about the fish.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes I think all of the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think if possible adding about the reproduction of this species would help in making it a stronger article.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I think so, yes.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, not at all.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. Everything that needs to be has either a hyperlink or is cited. You both did a very good job of doing that to make sure readers are able to click away to different articles if they do not understand certain topics.
 * I also really appreciate the "see also" tab as this is a very good idea and extremely helpful!

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read, but the addition of hyperlinks, headings, subheadings, and images would heighten its readability.
 * It is very easy to read and has all of the other components making it very well done and well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I can not find any grammatical or spelling errors! Very nice job!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think you did a very good job of keeping the original media because it really helps to make the article flow and adds a nice visual representation of everything you are talking about. The different sections (as I mentioned before) are a nice touch as well and help break up everything to make it smoother to read.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes! Very well done!