User:Wmartin21/European eel/Kiesol Stockholm 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? Wmartin21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Wmartin21/European eel

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? All three sources used are at least 10+ years old so newer sources might be worth looking into.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't believe so.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes and Yes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I believe so
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I don't think so
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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? They appear to be.
 * Are the sources current? They are a little outdated (10+ years)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All 3 sources used do work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the second line you have "a ,yellow" that needs correcting. Also, you spelt " cortisol" incorrectly.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No

Images and Media - He has not
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 info boxes, 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? I believe so
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adds more information to the life of Deep eels
 * How can the content added be improved? I would go into more details on what cortisol are since you mention them and they aren't found anywhere else in the article - some explanation on them would be helpful.