User:Lubovmyra/Four-eyed fish/Camp8120 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lubovmyra


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead section:

The lead has not been updated with new content, but unnecessary information has been removed and added to the section on physical characteristics. I think this was a great choice, and makes the lead section more concise and clear. The introduction section also provides a concise explanation of the organism, but might be a bit short after the removal of the information on the optomotor response. It might be a good idea to add information about the organism's history/discovery if it exists. One guiding question about the lead section asks if the lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections. This was not included, but perhaps something along the lines of "Research regarding recognized species, physical attributes, and behavior remains ongoing" would be beneficial to add, but not 100% necessary in my opinion. Overall, I think this is a successful lead section to introduce the article.

Content section:

I found the added content to be very relevant and a great addition to the article. When reading the article, nothing stands out as out of date, and I can't identify many sections where information is missing. The only section where I thought something was missing was when eye development was discussed. One sentence says, "In the first two stages of the eye development, the larvae have eyes resemble a normal vertebrate eye" but then a normal vertebrate eye is not described. I think this would be relevant information to add. One aspect that I don't think was relevant to the topic was the image in the Behavior section. The image doesn't seem to be representative of fish behavior, and it is also somewhat hard to see the fish in the image. I would recommend removing it, or finding an image that represents the grouping, beaching, or jumping behaviors, if any images exist. Overall, I really enjoyed the additions to the content.

Tone and balance section:

The tone of this article was kept very neutral. There were no instances where I detected bias of any kind. No viewpoints appear to be over or underrepresented. The article simply states the facts and does not take on any viewpoints or positions, making the tone and balance very effective. Overall, I do not have much criticism at all for this section. If adding new information to the article in the future, ensure to maintain the same neutral tone achieved throughout the article. Great job!

Sources and references section:

I can see a lot of new sources have been added to the reference section, which is great and represents thorough research. It seems that not every single piece of new content is followed by an in-text citation, so I would personally recommend adding more. The majority of sources is fairly current, although I see one from 1977 and another from 1996. I would recommend looking into more modern sources (mainly for the 1977 source) if possible. The links to the sources seem to all be working, and they seem to be of great quality and coming from reliable scientific journals. I would recommend changing sources number 10 and 13, as they are not journal articles and do not appear fit to be included on Wikipedia. However, it seems that these sources were added by a previous editor, so overall you did a great job with adding new sources and improving the article.