User:Iz Nguyen/Deep sea fish/Mroush2 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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article states exactly what deep sea fish are and what kinds of fish live there. it also goes on to say how far down in the ocean theses species live. The lead of this article contains a lot of information. i feel that it talks more about the environment and that the information should be in the environment section. the lead does not tell you what is going to be in the other sections and does not segway in to that next section. It has a lot of detailed information and a lot of links to different pages. as someone who is not familiar with the information it was somewhat hard to follow. I do not believe the information you are adding needs to be referenced to this lead. I believe that would make the lead more confusing.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
I believe the content added is relevant to the topic as long as you state which species has the the gene you are touching base on, unless they all have the gene and start that they all have the gene. The content all seem relevant and up-to-date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
the content added to the article is neutral and equally represented. Based on my perspective i do not believe there are viewpoints that are under- or overrepresented

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
In your sandbox you have to make sure you are adding the cites through the cite tab in editing. I could not tell which information was cited with what article and there were not links to the citation. But with your citation articles being from 2019 they are up to date and relevant.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The information you are adding is concise and clear. I did not see any grammatical errors. i would just add which species of fish have multiples of the genes.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
no images added.

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?

New Article Evaluation
not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
i think the content added improves the article and helps the reader understand how they are able to see in such dark environments. a strength of the content added would be that you explain what the opsin gene is. To improve the content i would say to state which deep sea fish have multiple of these genes.