User:Kaseyharveyy/Orectolobus reticulatus/Qtreacy Peer Review

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
The lead looks good, and is a succinct summary of the information that follows.

The opening sentence looks good.

The lead contains a decent description of the following sections.

The lead only has information listed in the article (which is good).

The lead is mostly concise, but might benefit from being whittled down a bit.

The content added is all relevant and up to date.

The content all seems appropriate.

Equity gap question n/a.

The content added is purely neutral, and there is very little bias, if any.

There aren't many viewpoints to present on a topic like this, so none are over/underrepresented.

The content doesn't appear to be trying to be persuasive (which is good.)

There is a lot of information not accompanied by a citation, particularly in the anatomy section.

The content that does have citations reflects its source.

The sources used are thorough and contemporary.

The authors of the sources are fairly eclectic, though two sources come from the same authors.

The links all seem to be in order.

The content is clear and concise, and where there are edits need to be made, I made them in the sandbox.

There were a few grammatical errors, which I adjusted in the sandbox.

The article is well organized.

There are no images, so all the image questions are n/a. I would suggest finding some, if there are any pictures of the shark available.

Overall, the content improves the article. It is very concise, but one thing I would suggest is dialing down the "It is unknown" type sections. It makes the article seem unreliable.