User:Gillian Setiawan/Bluntnose sixgill shark/Eryan99 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? Gillian Setiawan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gillian Setiawan/Bluntnose sixgill shark

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It appears you guys may have started this but it could use a little more
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * no
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes (the gene part is not in the sandbox yet but you guys could be adding that or it could be in the published article already)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think a little more on the development might be good if you could find it to clarify the little bits there already
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * for the most part
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * i think the claim about technological advancements in the end may be a little biased but I could be wrong
 * 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?
 * not towards the shark, the research part might try to persuade people that technological advances in research are good (which makes sense but not sure if that matters)

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * somewhat. The claim about DVM did seem sited, the part at the end that we learned in class but it isn't cited here and that may be beneficial
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yeah
 * Are the sources current?
 * yeah
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * not sure
 * 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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * article is more complete/robust
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * the diet was an important add on
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * i think it looks good