User:Kgb dsb/Pearleye/Laujmbc Peer Review

Lead: There was no distinction between lead and content, so it haed to differentiate the difference. The first paragraph worked well as a lead

Content: Could definitely have more information about the fish. The added content was relevant to the topic and up to date. There should be more content about the fish though.

Tone and Balance: Tone is neutral and informative. With no apparent biases.

Sources: Definitely a lack of sources. Makes it difficult to determine if the information is from a diverse amount of viewpoints.

Organization: Once more is added, features should be split into subsections to make it easier to read.

Images: Could use more images regarding the different features of the fish.

Overall: The article was really informative; however, I felt like it could have more information about the fish. The article more so described a single feature of the fish rather than the whole fish itself.

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.)