User:Leahyaa/Slendertail lanternshark/Zhulander Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Finkbr -- Brandon Fink


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


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - yes, the content added was relevant, and added to the info on how bioluminescence functions in splendid lantern shark
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - yes, all references are from 2019-2021
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - tbh content was missing before edits. The new edits illuminate how bioluminescence functions within slendertail lantern sharks.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Content is neutral, doesn't show any biased language. Purely information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - lots of info on hormonal control (which is good) but just wondering, is there another form of bioluminescent control? Or is it just hormonal?

Sources and References


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes, almost all the sources you guys have cited are scientific papers that have been peer reviewed. I am curious about the fishbase website though? It looks legit, but I'm just wondering who/what company/institute is behind it?
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, all references are from 2019-2021
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? - Yes. Most are scientists from all over the world at different institutions. Not just from one author, or from one university.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? - Honestly, good job with the sources, like I said before, almost all of them are peer reviewed articles.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - it is pretty easy to read. I will say someone without a science background might find it a bit dense, but with something this scientific in nature, it's hard not to use scientific language. One specific comment: "Duchatelet, et. al..." I dont think using scientific in-text citation is necessary, I think it might be better to say "a group of scientists from x university found that...", but this might just be a me thing.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - Not that I noticed!


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - yes the subtopics were helpful. -- I will say, it might help to have a separate subsection dedicated solely to behavior of lanternshark/purpose of bioluminescence, instead of combining it into the bioluminescent modulation section. I did like that you guys broke down explanation bioluminescent modulation into diff sections though.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - DEFINITELY improved. There was basically no info before, and you guys added a ton. Def helps create a more cohesive well of knowledge for the splendid lantern shark wiki page.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - lots of in-depth knowledge about the splendid lantern shark, good stuff about how/why bioluminescence works in this species.

Additional Comments

 * maybe add diff sections for behavior --> i.e. separate out mechanisms of bioluminescence and purpose of bioluminescence.
 * Honestly, didn't read too wordy, just needs to be broken out more IMO!

- Rachel Zhu (Zhulander)