User:Lopezvilan/Ninja lanternshark/Adoung Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing Lopezvilan's contributions to the whole page.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Lopezvilan/Ninja lanternshark
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Blackbelly lanternshark

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.)

Lead


 * The lead section does well to give an overview of the article contents.
 * Descriptive information about characteristics of the shark could be included in the lead.

Content


 * The "Type" section might be changed to be "Taxonomy" instead and include more taxonomical information.
 * The number of internal links might be reduced to key terms most relevant to the information. For example, in the lead, it might not be necessary to internally link all the mentioned oceans, countries, and the word "range".
 * Additional citations and source referencing could be provided in the bioluminescence section to factually back the provided information.
 * The additional information in the sandbox provides much more complete detail that the current article lacks

Sources and references


 * None of the sources are academic sources. A good next step would be to find, include, and cite more primary, academic, and peer reviewed sources and phase out the secondary ones as some of the current cited sources include a blog and a kids book.

Organization


 * The article seems to be well organized.