User:Ird003/Pacific seahorse/ZackBarbarisi14 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ird03


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Pacific seahorse


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pacific seahorse

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Didnt have to be updated, no new sections were added
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yeah
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it looks good still
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * You should add more here, it is too short

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is conservation
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, sep 21 2022
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No and no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No its a seahorse

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes no bias added
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Like i said, 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?
 * no
 * no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yeah scientific articles
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes you cited properly
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, scholarly articles
 * Are the sources current?
 * yeah
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I think but its ahrd to tell from just names

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yeah reads real well
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No good job
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, no new sections added but what you did add is in the right spot