User:Dude1107/Sabertooth fish/Laujmbc Peer Review

Lead: I understood the content and what was going to be talked about. It did lack a little information about the major sections that would be talked about. I think the lead includes a little too much detail that should be included in the body rather than the lead.

Content: The content added was adding hyperlink and talking about the eyes of the sabertooth fish. The content is up to date and does not appear to not belong. I would say that the article should be broken up into more sections rather than just description to allow for better flow of the article. The different features could be split up into multiple sections.

Tone & Balance: The tone is neutral and very informative. There does not appear to be biases or viewpoints that are over or under represented

Sources: The new content did not have any in text citation, so I was not sure if their sources were reliable or not.

Organization: Could definitely be broken up into their own separate sections.

Images: Images of the eye adaptation would be very helpful to picture what the adaptation looks like.

Overall Thoughts:

Good article overall, just need some organization and would make the article a lot better and more readable. The content added was very informative and gave lots of insight on the features of the fish

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)