User:AudreyS99/Blackbelly lanternshark/BeanoMill092 Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing AudreyS99, Jeremiahbravo, Rexyshy8, Kkitrick, Adoung, and Lopezvilan's article on The Blackbelly Lanternshark.
 * 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

 * Introductory sentence uses both common names for the shark as well as the scientific name to avoid ambiguity and includes family
 * Diet is introduced sufficiently and does not add new information that isn't found in the Diet section
 * Sources used are all pretty recent which ensures most up-to-date information is used in the article

Content

 * Content is very relevant with respect to the topic. I'm a little concerned about the sources used as the main source for the diet section is not actually focused on E. lucifer, but two different species.
 * More sections can definitely be added such as behavior (breeding and feeding) as well as distribution, since the shark is found widely in the Southern hemisphere as well as around China in shallower, coastal waters

Tone and Balance

 * While little seems to be known about this shark, I do not really like the use of phrases such as "thought to reside" and "may allow evasion". I suggest maybe rewording it to say that "findings suggest" or "current data points to", etc. I think that's a slightly better way of presenting what we know about the organism while still incorporating the uncertainty aspect to these topics.

Sources and References

 * Sources are all quite recent and from trusted sources and scientific publishers. I would like to see more species-specific research referred to if it exists, as many sources focus on other shark species
 * The links work and redirect to the appropriate pages

Organization

 * The second sentence regarding the shark's size and the depths it inhabits is a little confusing. I think these ideas can be split up since its distribution is further explained in the next sentence.
 * The draft is unorganized with morphology and diet paragraphs not under the appropriate headers.
 * Species pages usually have specific section headers as seen on the "Species" guide for writing articles. Maybe try organizing things like that?