User:Danlee28/Deep sea fish/ABitterGrace 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) DanLee28
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Danlee28/Deep sea fish

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overdetailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The addition of a whole new section for hydrostatic pressure adaptations seems to require a little more information than just the one study's findings however.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No.
 * 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.

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? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? it's just one source, so maybe it could use a few more authors.
 * 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? It's a good start, but the grammatical errors make it hard to read:
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the new section DanLee28 added is effective organization.

Grammar fixes: "an (should be capitalized) important piece of evidence that proves proteins of deep sea fish are structurally modified is the observation that actin from the muscle fibers of deep sea fishes are extremely heat resistant ; (change to just a comma) a similar characteristic to those of desert lizards . these (capitalize) proteins are structurally strengthened by modification of the bonds in the tertiary structure of the protein, inducing high levels of thermal stability."

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.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I'm not sure...
 * 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? The added section is a wise addition.
 * How can the content added be improved? Grammatical errors need to be fixed.