User:BCRacheBio/Malacosteus australis/ZachT99 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (BCRacheBio)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Malacosteus australis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I believe so? but I think it is also in a work in progress stage.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes the first sentence introduces exactly what organism is being discussed in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? it briefly goes over the one section of the article which is about how the M. australis uses red bioluminescence, once more topics are added, I would make sure to sum them up in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? as of now yes, it includes information about the morphology of the species.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it seems concise but it think more information will eventually be added to it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I am not too sure
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there can be a lot of content to add such as the more information/ sections on the species morphology, diet, distribution, reproduction, behavior, etc
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no?

==== Content evaluation I think there can more content added to this page about the species. I would make sure you can find some sources related to some of the topics I mentioned above to add more to this article. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I am not sure
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

==== Sources and references evaluation: so far there is only one source added from Froese et al. (2012), I recommend that you should gather more info from a variety of sources (especially some more recent sources). ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? there is a section for its red light adaptation.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

==== Images and media evaluation there are no images added to this article and I think it would really benefit if images of what the species looks like and where the species is distributed would be helpful. ====

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

==== Overall evaluation overall I like the tone and information given about the M. australis, I like how the article shows organization by the way its red light adaptation had its own sub section. However, I think more content should be added to this article especially content related to the morphology, distribution, diet, and behavior of the species. More sources and images should be added as well. ====