User:Kuke07/Opisthoteuthis californiana/Antoniaisrael 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? Kuke07
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kuke07/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, the first (and only) sentence is: "Opisthoteuthis californiana, also known as the flapjack octopus, is a species of umbrella octopus." This does not describe the sections of the article, which are: Description, Distribution, Classification, and Popular culture.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the only lead is the sentence referenced above.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead barely contains information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Extremely concise, information must be added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No content in Kuke07's bibliography.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No content in Kuke07's bibliography.
 * Are the sources current? No content in Kuke07's bibliography.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No content in Kuke07's bibliography.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No content in Kuke07's bibliography.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.

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
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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? No content in Kuke07's sandbox.
 * How can the content added be improved? You could focus on adding to the lead, setting up the article well by giving a brief description of each section. I also think that you could elaborate on every one of the sections or even add a new section; this species seems to be poorly understood so you could add all of the information that you learned from your annotated bibliography. Maybe add a section about movement or feeding?