User:AudreyS99/Blackbelly lanternshark/Andrew.gans Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:AudreyS99/Blackbelly lanternshark
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Blackbelly lanternshark

Lead
- The lead section contains a good and concise introductory sentence

- The lead section seems to hit on all the major sections of the article in a concise and clear manner without getting too bogged down with many details

- It is concise and balanced as a whole.

Content
- All the content of the article seems relevant and is well written

- I find that all of the major sections are balanced and includes important information from the cited articles. It gives a well rounded description of the species in terms of its morphology and ecology.

Tone and Balance
- I believe the draft article is very well and neutrally written, and I could not detect any sort of bias or overrepresentation of a certain viewpoints, which is all aided from the fact that most of the sections are just reporting facts from research articles.

- The bioluminescence section, though it is significantly larger than the other sections, is extremely well detailed and interesting. I think it is okay that it is longer than the other sections because it is a feature of the species that makes it very distinct, and could very well be the reason one is visiting the article to begin with!

Sources and References
- The sources/references seem very well chosen. They seem to be up to date and very specific to the section they are used in which is good.

- I appreciate how often the citations are used within the text, and I do not find any section in which I find a citation is lacking

Organization
- the article draft is well organized and split up

- I think it might be worth considering breaking the bioluminescence section into two smaller categories, perhaps one for the ecology/behavior aspect of it and then one for the more molecular side of things