User:MeitheFish/Masked hamlet/Kylezo13 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

MeitheFish, Asloot88


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MeitheFish/Masked hamlet
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The lead is decent, though somewhat short. I would also prefer if the lead provided some more information about the fish itself rather than its taxonomy.

The content is solid and the strongest point of the article. Only criticism I'd give is that some of the language could be more concise and make use of better grammar/sentence structure. For example, phrases like "It has been found that" can be cut for better cohesion.

All the content presented is neutral and scientific, which is prefect for this article.

All of the sources seem good, but only one has a link that works, so I'm not entirely sure about any of the other sources.

The organization could be improved by using more of the functions Wikipedia provides, but the overall gist of what is presented currently is a solid baseline.

More images as well as a taxonomy chart could be added, but that stuff is mostly finishing touches and I wouldn't be too concerned about it until the final phases of drafting.

The article meets the notability requirements and also links to numerous other Wiki articles, making it easily discoverable.

Overall, the content in this draft is extremely solid. I think all you would need is some finishing touches like touching up the grammar and organization. Also adding some more images and formatting them properly would improve the article. Good luck!