User:Pmbanks/Puffer Fish Mating Ritual/Nchs21 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Pmbanks
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pmbanks/Puffer Fish Mating Ritual

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence doesn't discuss the topic well, it is very broad and doesn't mention puffer fish. To improve it start off with something like "mating rituals in puffer fish are....". The lead does a good job at discussing the topics that are discussed focusing on mystery circles and the differences between males and females. To improve the lead, you could discuss other species of puffer fish it has been observed in and note their genus/family, etc. The second paragraph of the lead discussing how it was observed overtime could be place in another section discussing the evolution and discovery of the behaviour.

Content evaluation
The content in the lead discussing the characteristics of white spotted puffer fish may not be needed since it does not describe the "puffer fish mating ritual" as a whole but rather just a specific species. Rather than saying "the study specimens were collected off of..." it might be more relevant to say "it has been observed in areas like...".

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and does a could job of not seeming biased. However, other than the lead, the focus is primarily on "mystery circles". It would help develop the article if there were other sections discussing different aspects such as evolution. But overall is well structured and doesn't take a persuade the reader to a specific viewpoint.

Sources and references evaluation
Majority of the article is backed up well by reliable sources except for some sentences including in the lead where it states "the white-spotted puffer is a relatively small fish that was named in 2014 by a research group". The sources used a relevant and all from the 2000s providing important information. The link of Amami-oshima Island does not yet exist so i think it would be better to remove it. However, to improve the article, including more references would help. The links of the citations work well.

Organization evaluation
the content added is well written, concise, clear and easy to read. I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors. Rather than having two categories for mystery circles, i think it would be best instead to have 1 section "mystery circles" and break the other sections into subcategories since the paper is discussing puffer fish mating rituals not mystery circles.

Images and media evaluation
Figure 1 is not appearing in the article, but instead it just describes what is in the image. Figure 2 is well captioned and in a relevant area but there is no citation. Figure 3 is well captioned and in a relevant area as well, but again has no citation.

New Article Evaluation
The article is supported by 2-3 reliable sources that discuss the topic. The sources are relevant and provide important information but a wider variety of topics could be discussed rather than just mystery circles. The layout is good but could be improved by adding sub headings rather than new sections.

Overall evaluation
Overall this draft is a good start to the article and is concise clear and well structured. To improve it, discussing more aspects of puffer fish mating rituals would help, as well as adding in more reliable resources.