User:Lopezvilan/Ninja lanternshark/BeanoMill092 Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing AudreyS99, Jeremiahbravo, Rexyshy8, Kkitrick, Adoung, and Lopezvilan's article on the Ninja Lanternshark.
 * 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):Ninja lanternshark

Lead

 * Lead content is relevant but includes no information found in the Description section
 * Lead could be a good spot for putting the origin of the scientific name, not sure if that information needs its own section

Content

 * Content is relevant but "bioluminescence" and "features" could be combined under "morphology and anatomy"
 * Distribution and behavior are sections that can be added and are usually found on a species page
 * Some diet information is introduced in the "bioluminescence" section, this can definitely be fleshed out and go in its own section
 * I don't think "taxonomic breakdown" section is necessary since all of this information can be found in the taxobox

Tone and Balance

 * Please!!! Edit!! Vicky!! To!! Victoria!!!! It's really disrespectful to refer to this scientist by her nickname when her full name can clearly be found in the first source currently listed on the published page. Maybe also add her middle initial since she chooses to use this in her publication.

Sources and References

 * Sources are recent and from a variety of authors but are from sources that aren't published by scientific journals or notable websites

Organization

 * I think "Description" and "Type" could be combined or at least switched in order. Maybe more detailed descriptions can be given for the holotype and paratypes if that information is accessible
 * "Origin of Scientific Name" could be added to the lead section, I'm not too sure there is enough information here to warrant its own section on the page