User:Gkrohe/Epaulette shark/Gkrohe Peer Review

The lead has been updated to reflect the content added. There is also an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic well. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article, everything in the lead has to do with the article. The lead in the article is concise. The content added is relevant to the topic and up to date and all content present belongs. The article is about sharks so there is no reason to be biased about anything. The content is all backed up by reliable secondary sources and the links work. The images are nice and the added information is great.

General info

 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Epaulette shark


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Epaulette shark

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.)

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Does    the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly     describes the article's topic?

Yes, the introductory sentence gives a good idea of the topic and does not contain any unnecessary information.


 * Does    the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, the lead includes a description of the major sections, although I feel it spends too much time on the physical description of the shark. I think this information is best left in the actual “Description” section.


 * Does    the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Technically, yes. The lead is the only section to mention the fact that these sharks are longtailed carpet sharks. Although, later the article mentions that they are related to other carpet sharks.


 * Is    the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The only part of the lead I would change is the amount of time it spends on the physical description of the animal. Other than that, it is concise and gives a good overall idea of the epaulette shark.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is    the content added relevant to the topic?

The content in the article is all relevant to the topic.


 * Is    the content added up-to-date?

Yes, the content is up-to-date. A few of the articles cited are from the late 1990s, but the information is still valid today.


 * Is    there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I would say the article is missing information on the internal biology of the shark. It mentions it briefly when describing the shark’s ability to withstand extremely low oxygen environments, but there could definitely be more information present.


 * Does    the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address     topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No and no.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is    the content added neutral?

Yes, the content is neutral as it is simply information about the shark.


 * Are    there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The only claim I can see that could be portrayed as biased is when it discusses the shark’s inclusion in a community tank. The article states you should not put an epaulette shark in a community tank. However, this is for a good reason, as they will eat other fish.


 * Are    there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, the article is scientific in nature and does not contain traditional viewpoints.


 * Does    the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position     or away from another?

The only content designed to persuade the reader would be the information about the community tank I mentioned earlier. Again, it is a good idea not to include this shark as it eats other fish.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is    all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, the content is backed up by reliable sources. Most of the sources are peer-reviewed research articles. The popular television station BBC is also used as a source in the article.


 * Does    the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to     refer to the sources to check this.)

I did not check every source. However, the sources that I did check are accurately portrayed in the article. There are no glaring misinterpretations or unsubstantiated claims.


 * Are    the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on     the topic?

Yes, although like I said earlier, I would appreciate more information on the internal biology of these sharks. Other than this, the sources are very thorough and do a great job of supporting the article.


 * Are    the sources current?

Yes, the sources are current. The oldest source is from 1996, but most of them are from 2016-present.


 * Are    the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include     historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The sources are almost all peer-reviewed research articles, so they are not that diverse themselves. However, they were written by many different authors that were doing research. Therefore, you could argue that the authors are diverse. It does not include historically marginalized individuals as this is not applicable to this article.


 * Are    there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of     news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to     answer this.)

For the most part, no. These sources are very solid and have good scientific backgrounds. Again, the only thing I would say is that a source on the internal biology of the shark would benefit the article.


 * Check    a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links work fine.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is    the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to     read?

The content is well-written and clear. However, if it were up to me, I would move the “Description” section directly after the lead. I think this would help the overall flow of the article.


 * Does    the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

The grammar and spelling are excellent.


 * Is    the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that     reflect the major points of the topic?

The content is well-organized. Like I said earlier, I would move the “Description” section, but it is not a necessity. It works the way it is organized currently, it is just my opinion that it would be better if placed directly after the lead.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does    the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, it contains three images within the text and one general image of the shark.


 * Are    images well-captioned?

The three images in the text are well-captioned, however, the other image lacks a caption.


 * Do    all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes, all images follow Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.


 * Are    the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes, the images correspond nicely with the text that they support. For example, the image showing the shark “walking” on land is next to the section describing this behavior.