User:NickGBio/Hypoplectrus guttavarius/Betam25 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

NickGBio and Sofiiahe00's work.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Hypoplectrus guttavarius


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hypoplectrus guttavarius

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Yes, there is new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - The lead has a good introduction sentence that does concisely and clearly describe the hamlet through classification.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?/Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Certainly; however, it is a little repetitive of the sections themselves; could you consolidate some sections (like "Description" section) into the lead and really hone in on the details in the body sections?

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?/Is the content added up-to-date? - Content is up to date, relevant, and generally well-written; however, as mentioned above, some in the sections are very similar to that in the lead and makes the article a bit repetitive
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - It would be good to expand on the "Diet" section; how do they feed? Are there any relevant studies that reflect an interesting feeding pattern? Are they being affected by any environmental impacts from humans?

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?/Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?/Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - The tone is neutral and does not attempt to sway reader in a particular direction.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - We think you do a really good job of discussing different viewpoints in your "Description" section with the study that the scientists do to determine whether hamlets with different coloration are from different species; are there more studies that similarly discuss different viewpoints/interesting data collected from the hamlets behavior in other aspects such as mating, feeding, or localization?

Sources and References

 * I s all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?/Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - You've done a good job of citing all of the information you use in your article, just some formatting problems we think.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?/Are the sources current?/Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - We think you've chosen to look at good sources overall; you have a mix of recent and more historical sources, but they all make sense in the context that you're using them.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - We found some articles about mimicry and evolution in relation to the shy hamlet. It might be interesting to look into the evolutionary history of your species, specifically at the evolutionary survival tactic of mimicry in this fish and other hamlets.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - It looks like your formatting might be a little funky in the references section. It might be a good idea to insert the citations into the article themselves so you get the little blue superscript with the number in the bracket that links to your source in the references section.

Organizations

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?/Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the sections are well-organized, and it definitely looks like you've got a good framework going on here.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There are a couple very minor grammar errors (i.e. missing period and commas after some sentences), but nothing that gets in the way of understanding. Maybe just a quick read through wouldn't hurt though.

Images and Media

 * Your picture is good and follows Wikipedia's rules. The caption is pretty self-explanatory. It probably wouldn't hurt to put in additional pictures if you want to though, maybe just for aesthetic purposes. Maybe a comparison of the different appearances of the potentially differentiating species you mentioned in the "Description" section? A more close up picture would also be helpful since you go into a lot of detail about the physical characteristics of the shy hamlets.

Overall Impressions

 * Your article looks great! We think you've done a good job of writing clearly structured article, and it's a good start for sure. It'd be great to see you guys expand more on some of your sections, especially the "Diet" section. We'd love to read more about the shy hamlet!