User:AudreyS99/Blackbelly lanternshark/Lopezvilan Peer Review

General info
Group 2's work on the blackbelly lanternshark : Adoung, AudreyS99, Jeremiahbravo, Lopezvilan, Rexyshy8
 * 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.)

Lead

 * The lead is effective in providing a short summary of what is to come in the article.
 * Could use more information on how the sharks are ovoviviparous.

Content

 * Content provided is relevant to the article although there are some grammatical mistakes.
 * The diet section is good at touching on regional variation in diet.
 * Audrey mentioned in her review that linking vocabulary words would be helpful for all sections.
 * The taxonomy section could be made larger if there are more resources available.
 * The habitat section is good at providing the relevant information for the shark, and the resources provided are effective as well.

Sources and References

 * Citations are generally good and rely on academic sources. A few changes could be made to remove unnecessary sources (like the BBC article).
 * References should be looked over to ensure correct formatting.
 * Most article are from after the 2010s, so it is effective that they are recent and updated.

Organization

 * The article is decently organized, and with additional changes as sections develop, this will be a strong article.