User:MamaJohns/Colossal Squid/ZachT99 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? (Mamajohns)
 * 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? I think the lead does a pretty good job in summing up the major points of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? the sentence starts explaining the species and family of the squid. The second sentence goes in to detail on what makes this squid different from other squids (its mass and size), and so if these sentence were combined as one, I think maybe that would make the first sentence clearly describe the topic of the article?
 * 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 think it wraps up the major points in a concise way.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I think so, there are some sources used that were published in the last few years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? maybe more can be added to morphology such as color and beak size? also maybe in the taxonomy and history section, more can be added about its phylogeny and evolutionary history? (if there is information available on this).
 * 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? no

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? yes there are some sources as recent as 2018 and 2019
 * 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?

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? I don't think so
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes there are different sections and sub sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (I don't know if the images added were from peers)


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * 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 all on the right side and are kind of small I like the images but if they were a bit larger and spread out through the article it would look visually more appealing. maybe a image of there distribution would be cool too.

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? I am not too sure what was actually added but as a whole the content of article seems great as covering the topics discussed in this article
 * How can the content added be improved? maybe adding more to detail to the morphology of the colossal squid, and enlarge the photos, and place them evenly across the article.