User:Bpigz/Anglerfish/Cathyyy97 Peer Review

Anglerfish 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? Bpigz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bpigz/Anglerfish

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It covers some of the sections, not all
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It seems to bounce all over the place, doesn't quite flow.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content seems to belong, expanded on genetic make up which is helpful
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not that I can tell

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? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, very neutral

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?Yes
 * Are the sources current? They are all very current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? 3 of the sources have some of the same authors. Could be more diverse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

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? Not much
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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? Yes, however many of these sources are the same as before
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It definitely added useful information to the overall article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Strength is that it expands on a detailed part about the fish
 * How can the content added be improved? However, the anatomy section already has so much info, that this kind of gets lost in the midst of that section.