User:Myeverything5/West African lungfish/Alexro25 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Myeverything5


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myeverything5/West_African_lungfish?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * West African lungfish

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead section was updated well as a brief overview of the content added. The introductory sentence is concise and straightforward, and clearly states the topic that is to be discussed in the rest of the article. I think it could be helpful to add a few more sentences addressing the new information that was added, alluding to their physiology, diet, and life cycle. Although the topic is clearly about a particular species, it could be more engaging and informative to indicate the subtopics that are going to be covered in the content section, as the original article introduction does not go into that. It may also be a good idea to add one or two sentences briefly describing the aspects that contribute to them being considered prehistoric animals.

Content:

The content that was added to the article was relevant and contributed well to the overall information. The original article only briefly discussed distribution, habitat, and diet of the West African lungfish, so there was a lot of area for improvement. Including information on their physiology (first two paragraphs), as well as the phases of aestivation (last few paragraphs), was a great addition and was written very well. Many important concepts were included and organized in an effective way. Since this article discusses a prehistoric species that has been identified and studied for years, the information included appears up to date. One suggestion I have is to separate the information under subheadings to organize it in a way that is easier for the reader.

Tone & balance:

All of the content that was added had a neutral tone and did not include any clear bias. Everything appears to be entirely fact based, which indicates to me, as a reader, that I am not trying to be swayed in any particular way. This article is also discussing a very neutral scientific topic, so nothing seems to be overrepresented or underrepresented in any way. There is a good balance of information within the various subtopics that were included (physiology, diet, stages of life), and none of the sections appeared to be overly talked about. Furthermore, I believe that all of the information is very straightforward and all important aspects of each subtopic are covered well.

Sources & references:

There is a good variety to the sources used throughout this piece and they all appear to have consistent information with each other, which is indicative that the content is reliable. It was good that there were some peer-reviewed articles used, as well as informative websites, such as National Geographic. Since the content generally consists purely of facts, it was easy to test the reliability of each statement that was made. After looking into each of the references, it was apparent that the facts are current and the drafted changes reflect well on what the sources have discussed. Since this topic seems to have been well researched over time, the sources appear to reflect well on the available information for this topic.