User:AudreyS99/Blackbelly lanternshark/Jeremiahbravo Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing the work of AudreyS99, Rexyshy8, Kkitrick, Adoung, and Lopezvilan
 * 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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.

Overall the planned outline and additions are well made, however there is definite room for even more information to be added, grammatical errors to be fixed, and ultimately finalize the organization structure so that the draft can feel more concise.

Lead

 * The lead contains an introductory sentence that does clearly and concisely describe the articles topic, however I feel as if the first two sentences can be combined (specifically where they can be found+first sentence) as I have observed is very common to do with similar pages examining a particular species.
 * The lead does provide a brief description of some of the articles major sections such as diet, distribution, morphology, taxonomy and habitat, however there is a lack of mention of human interactions being present within the lead. I suggest adding a brief sentence or two describing this interaction as to make the lead more effective.
 * In terms of references used for this portion of the article, it appears that most are up to date with the exception of reference two which is used to describe the diet and the distribution of the species. I would recommend trying to find a research paper that is more recent to display the most accurate information as possible. There is also the concern over reference from the "fishbase" in terms of its reliability as it is not a peer reviewed article, and as such I recommend either additional research into the reliability of this site or substitution of the reference for one that has been peer reviewed and contains similar information.

Content

 * I find the content provided to be very relevant to the topic. There is a concern over some of the information provided within certain sections of the content however as there are sources such as retrieved from which compared to other sources, is very outdated as the catalogue was published in 1980s it appears. Given the time gap it is likely that new data has been found that may be different than originally reported.
 * There is clear room for added information in the taxonomy section of the article, for example it is possible that the information that can be added is the order of the species. There can also be the addition on the discovery of the species regarding first sightings and the eventual first publication solidifying its place in the phylogenetic tree as seen with some other high quality Wikipedia pages on marine species.
 * The human interaction portion of the article is lacking as well, there can definitely be added information on things such as their capture rate and mortality in relation to other similar species of lanternsharks. If there is any conservation efforts being made I feel like that is equally as important to include within this section.
 * Overall there is a consistent neutral tone present throughout this draft in its attempt to represent every viewpoint.

Sources and References

 * The sources are generally well chosen and are derived from trusted sites and publishers. However, there is the occasional non-scientific article that has provided information as the BBC, and I would recommend going to the sources that they had listed to locate the article being referenced and use the source directly as to avoid any inaccurate data being reported.

Organization

 * In the bioluminescent section, I have some recommendations for edits for organization sake. I would move the following sentence "An iris-like structure (ILS) is located underneath the lens and can open and close to release light" so that it follows the sentence "Photophores are located across the body of E. lucifer in distinct arrangements, but are found in much higher density on the ventral side of the shark where they are oriented downward" instead. The flow would greatly benefit as I feel that there is a random separation of the information on the photophores to mention ILS when they can still be logically mentioned in a later point in the paragraph.
 * In the diet section of the draft there are a couple of sentences that can be shortened or stated in a more effective manner. For example, the sentence "Populations in Japan have been found to consume euphausiids as part of their regular diet instead of crustaceans, though they still retaining squids, albeit mesopelagic squids, and myctophids as part of their feeding regime" can be shortened to simply state mesopelagic squids instead of mentioning both "squid" and "mesopelagic squid"
 * Based on the planned outline, I believe that is an effective way of presenting the information on this species.
 * The reference section is the area of most concern as there is not a consistent citation style used as some are properly cited in APA and others are simply links to the actual original source. There is also the concern of the lack of one concise reference list and as such I would also advise to spend time to do so.