User:Sekigucr/Oarfish/Alhost7 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? Sekigucr
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Oarfish, User:Sekigucr/Oarfish

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 for this article was well-organized and simple, while introducing the species in a direct and rather simple way. This creates a clear introduction to the species in question, and is quite concise. I would just double check the citations, as a few of sentences are sitting without a direct in-text citation which can prove to be misleading. I do not think any new information has been added by my peer to this Lead, but my one edit suggestion would be checking up on the in-text citations.

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
The overall content is pretty solid for this article. The anatomy section is detailed well and provides a nice visual as to what this fish looks like. However, that section is slightly jumbled in organization. For example, I would move the electric shock statement to elsewhere in the anatomy section, as it seems out of place directly after the sentences on body shape and size. Similar to the anatomy section, the ecology and life history is well detailed. I would look to continue developing content on spatial distribution of these fish as that section was slightly short. In addition, try to find new research/observations for this fish in order to continue growing this wikipedia page.

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 tone of this article is objective and does a good job presenting information without a present bias or subjective attitude. Make sure you maintain this same language when you begin to add edits to the article.

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
As of right now, there is no new edits and the sandbox for this article and username is empty that I saw. I did not encounter any article links that did not work, and the journal article sources used in this article seemed reliable and peer-reviewed.

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
I found this article straight forward and overall easy to read. It is short so there is definitely room to add more information. The direct, concise explanations are well-done and make the overall reading of this article quite easy and simple, despite the complexities of this creature.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The images presented add well to the article without overwhelming the already short amount of information with an overload of pictures. I particularly like the Navy Seal photo as it gives an excellent idea of how big these oarfish can really get. The descriptions for the photos also seem well done, and describe what is being presented in the picture for those who are interested.

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
Overall, this is a solid article so far. It is well organized, contains good information, and is cited pretty well. There is definitely room for the presentation of new, revised information as well, as the article is small and has room for growth. I found this article interesting and it was very easy to read because the language was so direct. My one piece of advice is to double check on citations throughout the article to make sure no statements are standing without proper citations!