User:Egapaa/Shark tourism/Laurakripka 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? Egappa
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Egapaa/Shark tourism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet, only a sentence.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It gives a general statement about what shark tourism is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, just mentions how it benefits counties economies.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? needs to have a few more details added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, most of the sources are from 2019, and the earliest is from 2012 which is still relevant to today.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some more information should be added but its really good for a first draft :)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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? Maybe add some information on how shark tourism has helped people from hurting sharks.

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
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, organized by Countries

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I like how you explained how shark tourism works in specific countries and how they helped sharks
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Talks well about specific countries and how it helps the economy in those countries.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just add more information on specific cases in which shark tourism actually benefited the sharks, and just general information on how shark tourism works