User:MeganBodine/Greater blue-ringed octopus/ColbyRee 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? MeganBodine
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MeganBodine/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead could use some work. First, having only one sentence makes it difficult to understand the articles main sections. Additionally, the information presented is not further expanded upon later in the article. Finally, the lead doesn't really describe the articles topic to a great extent.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Most of the content in this article is relevant to the topic. Though, it is difficult to know if the content is up to date without sources appearing for me. Also, information about taxonomy would be useful. Additionally, some sections are relatively short and could use more information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content of this article is mostly neutral. Since this is a scientific article it is hard to be persuasive with facts, but I would say that the article is well balanced.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Citations are not included in the article, so it is difficult to judge. Additionally, not enough peer-reviewed sources are provided, making it hard to analyze the quality of the sources. Finally, several websites are used rather than articles. I would recommend trying to find more reliable sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article is fairly well organized. Though, the genetics section could possibly be grouped with the potential danger section or could be included as a subsection. Furthermore, some areas included slight grammatical errors that could be easily corrected following a re-read.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No images were provided, but were alluded to. However, because images are more important later on in the article timeline I will not criticize their absence.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added substantially improved the quality of the article compared to before. The strength of this article is the potential danger and mating behavior sections. These sections were both interesting and informative. However, sections could be improved upon by dulling down the language because many audiences will have difficulty trying to understand some of the content provided. Additionally, more information could be added to some of these sections (mainly the diet and distribution sections). I would also suggest adding more links to other articles to help readers.