User:Savetheocean2/Aquatic animal/808TR777 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? (Savetheocean2)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Aquatic animal

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 appears to be updated with new content, and include an introductory sentence with a clear and concise desciption of the article topic. It also includes a brief description of the article's major sections, and only relevant information on the article. The lead had a great concise start on the topic at hand.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
All of the articles content seemed to be relevant to thhe topic, with up-to-date information. The content added held information that was all relevant to the topic, nothing seemed to be out of place. There were no equity gap's in the article, and the topics mentioned did not mention underrepresented topics.

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 articles added were neutral, with no biased claims. There were no viewpoints that were underrepresented nor overrepresented, and there were no attemps of persuading the readers favor towards their position.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The article holds reliable secondary sources, with information on the topic at hand. Half of the sources are not to current; dating back to may of 2009. Some of the content seems to be derrived from an orgabization, and some from a general website on biology definitions. The links provided do work.

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
The content is well written, and pretty easy to read. I spotted one error mistake that may make some readers confused on the information. the content was well organized and seperated into different sections.

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?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

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
I feel there may still be a little more that can be added to the article. The article, however, holds a strong description of the topic and information that is being presented. Although, there could be a little more information on the locations and different types of aquatic animals to give a bit more detail on the topic.