User:Camille.cain/Pharaoh cuttlefish/Sbrobbchavez 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? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Camille.cain

User:Camille.cain/Pharaoh cuttlefish

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I see that the new section headers you added are in the introduction/contents-good! I wasn't aware that we wanted to summarize ALL the sections below in the intro, so you may want to look into doing that moving forward. I liked how the lead is concise, but it sounds like quick blurbs about its hunting, camouflage, human usefulness etc. (maybe just a few words) might be helpful for the final product.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
I found the content you added to be helpful/relevant-especially in the "Coloring and Mimicry" section. I might suggest swapping the italicized new material with the first paragraph below (just a thought). Looks like the material you pulled information from is reasonably up to date as well. While the article is much more complete than the original, it may be helpful to add a short section on this animals taxonomy (mollusca, etc).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Your additions have a scientific tone, and do not make this reader feel like you are pushing some kind of cuttlefish agenda. Information presented is exactly as you would find it in the literature.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Links appear to function, as I was able to click through to the related abstracts just fine. These sources are reasonably current and relate directly to the topic. All peer-reviewed.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Realizing that this is a first draft-however 95% of your prose reads well. I would perhaps nitpick a bit with a few word placement issues (starting a sentence with "and," in the human use section, etc), but I am sure you will clear most of this up later. Well organized, although see above for one suggestion about organization I had for you.

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
I see no added media here-finding fair-use material can be tricky so be sure to use the licensing options if you do a google image search for some later.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This was not a new article.Good work linking to other articles in your new content.

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
The content added was useful for describing this species of cuttlefish. I liked how you managed to come up with species-specific content, despite cuttlefish being a broad group of mostly-similar species. I would say that going back through to maximize economy of words/sentence structures is the only improvement I can suggest for the added content.