User:Sophiegeary/Seattle Aquarium/Saania Saxena Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Sophiegeary


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sophiegeary/Seattle_Aquarium?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template:
 * 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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:

I feel the Lead could have more information than what the article already has. It is a little short and not quite providing the overview of subsections to come like history, pop culture, conservation, etc. The introductory sentence, however, is apt and concise. I would just add brief details about main subsections.

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content added is definitely relevant to the topic of seattle aquarium. For instance, the conservation sub section talks about latest conservation projects of 2020 and 2021. The educational efforts subsection is very important and relevant piece added.I would perhaps add to this some cited examples of an educational project done.

For the pop culture sub section talking about a game, I would add a relating image to complement the description to increase visual appeal.

Tone and Balance
The tone is very neutral and objective rather than subjective with a well-researched base.

Sources and References
The sources are up to date and work and are usually from peer reviewed journals/articles. Like news articles and journals.

Organization
The content added is well written and concise to read with organized subsections and no grammatical errors.