User:Bpigz/Anglerfish/Hunterft99 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? (Bpigz)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Anglerfish

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I believe so
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Well the first sentence states the Order that the anglerfish is from, but the second gives a little context and identify the key feature of the anglerfish, maybe these sentence can be combined?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? the Lead mostly focus focuses on the reproduction and variances in anglerfishes based on their location. The reproduction is a major section of article but there sections like "swimming and energy consumption" that is not represented.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? the range and distribution, which leads to the differences in anglerfishes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? the lead is concise, but short.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes a lot of the content derives from sources within the last 20 years, some within the last five
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think adding more content on bioluminescence and distribution/habitat could be beneficial
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Im not sure

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? There is a a lot of info on reproduction so maybe trying to expand the other topics like " Evolutionary history" to provide more balance
 * 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? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? as mentioned before many of the sources are from the 2000's and onward, so yes
 * 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? 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 that I could pick up
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, maybe making a section based on bioluminescence, and distribution/habitat could beneficial

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


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

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? well based on the article the sections on predation and reproduction are the articles strengths, there are also good images
 * How can the content added be improved? expanding on the topics the are lacking info

==== Overall evaluation 8.5/10 I think the article is a good foundation and has some great content and sources, bu there is room to add and expand on things like ancestral history, bioluminescence and habitat. ====