User:MamaJohns/Colossal Squid/Hunterft99 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? (LegendOfWook)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Colossal squid

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead is able to nicely sum up the key portions of the article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The first sentence just describes the family that the colossal squid belongs to and is followed by other sentence explaining its common names and what it is known for. maybe these two sentences can be combined ?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I felt like it was fairly concise and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I believed so, some of the sources were published within the last five years or so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Maybe adding a section dedicated to overall morphology, like color and beak size. Also maybe some context with its ancestral tree, if there is any.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Im not sure

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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? Not that I could see

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? As mentioned before there are a good amount of sources from within last five years, even one in 2020
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? not that I could find
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media,(not sure


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They are off to the side and look a bit bland, maybe add more and focus on the arrangement

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Im not entirely sure what you added specifically but as whole I think the strength of the article comes from the good sources and the sub sections whihc greatly emphasized the definitive details of colossal squid
 * How can the content added be improved? Again possibly adding a sub sections such as a description that goes in to more details on the physicality and appearance of the colossal squid and more images, maybe some distribution map.