User:Latkanybrian/Anglerfish/Cp31201 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Team Argus (kcilley, NemethrBC, Lauraellis4, Latkanybrian)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Latkanybrian/Anglerfish?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Anglerfish

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.)

Added onto anatomy section for structure and bioluminescence, and mentioned any additions or deletions they made to the Anglerfish page bibliography. Everything seems to be relevant to the article topic and the information wasn't too cluttered and dense so I wasn't distracted. The article seemed neutral to me and that the viewpoints are neither overrrepresented, nor underrepresented. The citations work and do support the claims in the article. It seems that the article originally had some dead or outdated links, but the group did a good job at taking care of those and removing the sources for the reader. Each fact is supported by a reliable source as most, if not all came from scientific journals so it is safe to assume that there is little to no bias in these sources. Two of the four sources for Anglerfish were within the last 8 years but the other two were from 2004 and all the way back to 1968. I'm not sure what is considered recent or outdated for our wikiproject but it is very possible that new information hasn't surfaced yet to update previously old information so the 2004 source could be valid, but a source from the 1960s does seem a little too outdated.

Response
Thank you so much for the feedback! I'll definitely look into the 1960s source and 2004 source a bit more! -Laura