User:Jewellha/Abyssal grenadier/Jewellha Peer Review

Peer review:

Lead

N/A

Content


 * The content added was relevant to the topic, as it described the response rates of the fish to bait as well as the range of habitat, so it is important for the hunting/eating behaviors of the fish.
 * The content is from 1994-2012, so relatively up to date.
 * There is no irrelevant content.
 * The article does not deal with wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance


 * The content added is neutral, but may summarize one study too much.
 * There are no biased claims in the article.
 * I think the article from Priede et al. may be overrepresented as the study is summarized within the article.
 * The content is not added to persuade the reader.

Sources and References


 * Everything seems to be cited properly, and is from relatively recent sources.

Organization


 * This is a sandbox draft so it is a little hard to tell where each sentence will be placed. I think making a new section to describe the feeding/hunting behaviors or separating out the one paragraph that already exists on the wikipedia page could help with the organization
 * Make sure to italicize the name of the fish ("C. armatus"). Other than that there were no grammatical issues.

Images and media

N/A

For new articles only

N/A

Overall impressions


 * This was relevant information added that benefits the overall paper, there are just some minor organization suggestions/grammatical errors.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)