User:Iz Nguyen/Deep sea fish/Kiesol Stockholm 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? Iz Nguyen
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Iz Nguyen/Deep sea fish

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? He has one for the section he is adding to/
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it appears concise and to the point.

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 don't think so.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Characteristics is one of the longer sections of the article so I must say no.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it appears so.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I don't know how you would determine that.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not believe so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I believe Science Magazine is a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? They were both published in 2019, so I would say yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I believe the first article only has 1 author despite the source at the bottom saying otherwise. The 2nd article is fine.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Sources have been added but no citations have been used.

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? I believe so.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media None have been added


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Clear, easy to read. New to the articles.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe add a picture of the RH1 genes in one of these deep sea creatures.