User:Sophiegeary/Seattle Aquarium/Mkuulei6 Peer Review

General info
(provide username) @sophiegeary
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sophiegeary/Seattle Aquarium
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Seattle Aquarium

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

 PEER REVIEW: 

Lead: In the article, the lead provides a clear introduction of the Seattle Aquarium, its location, founding, accreditation, and major expansions. It summarizes the article's major sections, including history, exhibits, conservation efforts, and recent developments. The lead includes information not present in the article, such as the involvement of the Seattle Aquarium in conservation efforts and the planned Ocean Pavilion expansion. I think the lead was almost too long and could be more concise, allowing the sections to dive deeper into details. Due to how long it was, I think some information can get lost.

Content: The content added is relevant to the topic and covers aspects of the Seattle Aquarium's history, exhibits, expansion plans, and conservation efforts. It is up-to-date, including recent developments such as the announcement of the Ocean Pavilion expansion and the aquarium's involvement in conservation programs. The article addresses topics related to marine conservation and educates visitors, contributing to a better understanding of marine life and ecosystems. No content appears to be missing, and all sections are cohesive and well-organized.

Tone and Balance: The tone of the content is neutral and provides information with no bias. There are no apparent claims that heavily favor a particular position. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another, maintaining a balanced perspective.

Sources and References: All new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources, enhancing the credibility of the article. You could try to include a more diverse spectrum of authors and sources, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds, to ensure a comprehensive representation of the topic (if applicable).

Organization: The content is well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read, with no apparent grammatical or spelling errors. It is well-organized, broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. Each exhibit is described in detail, providing valuable information for readers interested in visiting the Seattle Aquarium.

Images and Media: I think the images were relevant and broken up nicely throughout the article.

Overall Impressions: The content added has significantly improved the overall quality of the article, making it more comprehensive and informative. I think the strengths of it lie are its relevance, accuracy, and organization. I think the article could benefit from more diverse sources and authors (if applicable), as well as making sure the lead section is concise yet informative. Overall, I think the article provides a thorough overview of the Seattle Aquarium and its significance in marine conservation and education.