User:Danlee28/Deep sea fish/Parkaln 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

 * Reviewing Danlee28's article on Deep sea fish
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Deep sea fish

Lead

 * Unable to find the new content that was added by the peer
 * The lead does a good job in introducing the topic while also giving examples of "deep sea fish"
 * The middle paragraph does a good job introducing the upcoming subsections
 * Although the first two paragraphs in the lead are concise while giving the necessary information, the last paragraph may not be a necessary component

Lead evaluation

 * Overall, the lead has been written well and gets the main points introduced to the readers. There, however, are areas in which details can be omitted or cut out, e.g. the last paragraph can be truncated, omitted as a whole, or placed in a different section of the article

Content evaluation

 * The content in the article is relevant to the topic at hand
 * While the content is not out-of-date, the most recent citation is from 2012.
 * I am not sure if the Wikipedia's equity gap was addressed in this article, as I am not sure how one would do so with a topic like "deep sea fish"

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The content added is neutral and is void of any 'opinions'
 * There aren't many claims in general in this article; most of the writings refer to research papers and findings, which by nature are neutral and are not heavily biased towards a particular position
 * There aren't any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented from my reading of this article. There may, however, be new research that has been found that may need to be added (which may be a contention for an underrepresented point)
 * The content and the article as a whole serves to educate the readers about deep sea fish, not to persuade the reader in one direction or another

Sources and references evaluation

 * The content is backed up by a variety of reliable secondary sources of information
 * The information doesn't all come from a single source, but from many different journals and peer-reviewed articles, some being from high-impact journals
 * The sources are neither current nor outdated; many of the sources were published in the mid-to-late 2000s to early 2010s.
 * Of the links that I checked, they were all accessible and worked

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

 * The content added are generally concise, well-written, and easy to read. There are some paragraphs that seem to not be necessary information, but to be thorough as possible, it would make sense to leave it in
 * From my read-through, there wasn't any grammatical mistakes
 * The way the article was divided up makes logical sense and makes it easier for readers to digest the information.
 * Even within the subsections, the paragraphs were divided up well—it wasn't all just one large paragraph that would be too daunting for new readers

Images and media evaluation

 * Could not find any images/media added by my peer

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

 * My evaluations above are about the article as a whole; there are areas in which my peer can add to improve the overall quality of the article
 * There doesn't seem to be much added content by my peer, but that is ok; there aren't too many gaps waiting to be filled in this article, and many of the additions my peer can make will be minute.
 * That is to say, there can be new research done on deep-sea fish that can useful added information