User:LizetteAhlers/Gonostomatidae/LONGYC6 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? (provide username) LizetteAhlers
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:LizetteAhlers/Gonostomatidae

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, lead has been updated. Some new content has not been reflected.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, partly.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is pretty concise since the added part is currently very brief.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I believe at least most content are.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, I think a lot of new topics are discussed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not sure if The New York Times could be seen as reliable but other ones look good!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * One source is from 1988 which is relatively old, but it might still be a good source.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not sure
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links work for me.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is pretty concise and easy to read as a draft.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * With a quick glance, I do not see grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Mostly yes. Content is breaking up to a few new sections which is helpful.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is no images and media added therefore the next a few questions do not apply.
 * 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?
 * Yes, I definitely seen a lot of improvement when the new content is added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The original content only contains the information on taxonomy. The content added includes a variety of informative about the species' feeding habits and morphology.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding more link to possible unfamiliar terms for the generally audience could be helpful!