User:Jalashiareliford/Spotted Lungfish/Honorherring 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? Jalashiareliford
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jalashiareliford/Spotted Lungfish

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * N/A because it is a new article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it educates the reader on how the lungfish is able to survive on land for periods of time and also explains the adaption that allows them to go on land, which could be fatal for most other tropical fish.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The resource used to create this article was published within the last 15 years. Considering that there was very little information available on the article prior to this indicates that there is probably not an excessive amount of research done on the lungfish, so the source used seem to be fairly recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that the content added was very informative. It introduced a new topic very briefly and concisely, and the sentence order flowed well with the information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes it presents scientific based information about the adaptions allowing the lungfish to breathe on land, that other tropical fish do not possess.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it is unbiased scientific information from reputable sources.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, it is very concise and to the point.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it is very unbiased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the source is a scientific journal article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes the topic of the resource pertains completely to lungfish and the way they are able to breath on land.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are within the last 15 years and the lungfish does not seem to be a very widely researched topic, so for this topic, it is recent.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes the authors are a fairly diverse in ethnicity and also gender.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes it took me to Jstor to access the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes it very concise and informative without being too wordy.
 * 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, the sentence order flowed well, making it easy to follow and understand.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A


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

For New Articles Only - N/A
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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?