User:Danlee28/Deep sea fish/Alhost7 Peer Review

Introduction
Relevance


 * This introduction does a good job including the components of the deep sea (zones, physical conditions, examples of species, etc).
 * However, I would have a section of this article strictly for physical conditions of each zone (temperature, depth, pressure) instead of putting all of this into the introduction. Keep the introduction brief and organized, and include perhaps the zones and their depths, but nothing else about the conditions of the specific deep sea zones.

Neutrality


 * This introduction is overall neutral. However, some language could be smoothed out to sound more neutral such as "an extremely hostile environment". This sounds a little bit subjective, so I would instead use a word like "extreme" to describe the environment.

Viewpoints over/underrepresented


 * Overall, the viewpoints seem well organized in introduction. I would just make sure organization is your focus, because the introduction contained a lot of information and felt a bit clustered to me.

Citations


 * The first 3 citations have ISBN links that do not work. However, I was able to look up the book that these citations were drawn from.

Reference Reliability


 * The introduction seems to to draw from one pretty reliable book source. I would need to dig deeper into the author of this book to make sure its completely reliable, but upon first glance, it looks good!

Overall review


 * The introduction does a good job explaining the deep sea and the fish within it, but it is quite clustered. I would work on better organizing/moving around some of the information so it is not so jam-packed.

Environment

 * I was slightly mislead by the title of this section. I feel as though there is a lot of organizational work needed in this article. For example, I would put all the physical, abiotic condition information into this section. From there, I would move into a section about food availability and marine snow, as I do not think this necessarily fits into the discussion of hydrostatic pressure, depth, temperature, etc. So maybe, start with a discussion of physical conditions and then in this section about the environment, add the information about marine snow and food availability within that information, but I would not start with marine snow and then move into hydrostatic pressure. It seems backwards to me.
 * I would also continue to work on neutrality. Some of the language used in this section (i.e. "harsh environment") is a bit subjective, so I would use more objective words like "extreme" or "challenging" instead.
 * There is a lack of citations in the second and third paragraphs of this section. While of course this is not your fault, this is something to be wary of, because I have no idea where this information is coming from.
 * Overall, I think this section needs a lot of work, both with organization and structure as well as with citations. There is a cluster of a lot of information and it does not feel to be organized in any particular way. In addition, it lacks important citations in sections that are purely discussing fact. I would either try to find where these sources came from, or replace this section with new information that you find that has a reliable citation.

Characteristics

 * This is my favorite section of the article. It discusses important adaptations of the deep sea and is well organized in how it discusses it's information. It uses good sources and cites well. It also has good photos and graphics and includes important charts of deep sea organisms that help the reader learn more about these adaptations and how they appear in the deep sea.
 * I do not have too many suggestions here, except just go through and proof read, edit down any wordy sections, and add any adaptations that you read about in your sources from the bibliographies we made.
 * In addition, while is said citations were strong, they are lacking in the two attached tables. I would try to figure out where this information was gathered from and compiled into tables, because the tables are visually useful, but without citations, they are not completely reliable.

Specific Fish Zone Sections (Mesopelagic and Bathypelagic)

 * I would consider adding sections on both abyssopelagic and hadalpelagic zones. These are both important to the deep sea organisms as well and they contain unique deep sea fish, so the lack of sections for them in this article is slightly confusing. Even if you can only find 5 sentences on each of these sections, it would be useful for both the overall content and structure of this article to add sections for these two zones in the deep sea.
 * The pictures and descriptions on the sides of these sections need citations. Some have attached citations, but a few are lacking, therefore just listing a picture and a long comment that has no source to back it up.
 * Overall, these sections seem strong to me, but just continue to check citations and make sure that all the information presented has a source backing it up. The bathypelagic section does a good job with sources, but the mesopelagic section is definitely more scarce when it comes to citations.

Lanternfish

 * Is this specific section necessary for the article? All the other fish in this article are referenced and then their specific wikipedia article is available for viewing. Why does the lanternfish get a specific section just for it? Perhaps, remove this section and add in this information to the correct zone section. This just seems to stand out in this article, and does not feel overall very necessary.
 * There is only one citation in this section after the first sentence. Therefore, the following information has no source(s) to back it up, which therefore makes it questionable. I would attempt to put in-text citations into this section where they are called for.

Endangered Species

 * I like this section of the article. You could also add more information about the environmental impact of humans on deep sea fish, if you would like. I think a section like that would be a good way to bring an end to this article about deep sea fish.
 * Also, it is stated that 5 species of fish are endangered in the deep sea, but only two specific species are listed, so perhaps adjust this language so that it the sentence says that there are 5 endangered species, two of which are the blue hake and spiny eel. This will create more clarity in this section.

Proposed Edits (Sandbox)

 * Your proposed addition of information about the hydrostatic pressure adaptations is very interested and i think it will be a strong addition to the article. Just ensure that your article is cited correctly when you insert it into the wikipedia article, as one of my main reviews of this overall article was that it is lacking a lot of reliability, because in-text citations are missing and/or scarce in sections.