User talk:Amhwarren/Cleaner fish/AnimalBehaviorStudent Peer Review

Peer review of Amhwarren's article Cleaner Fish by user AnimalBehaviorStudent 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? (provide username) Amhwarren Cleaner fish Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amhwarren/Cleaner_fish

Lead
Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? '''Yes, the lead was updated and provided necessary and useful information. It was very informative''' Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? '''The additional information contributes to the overall article. Based on the view history, the lead has been edited numerous times and the contributor clearly introduces cleaner fish in farming.''' Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? '''Yes, the lead provides a clear overview of the article and is easy to follow. However, the ways in which cleaner fish affect the environment and economy is addressed in the article, but it is not mentioned in the lead. The lead can briefly introduce the impact of cleaner fish on the environment and economy.''' Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all the information in the lead is relevant to the overall topic. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? '''The lead is clear and detailed. It is easy to understand and reflects most of the information in the article.''' Lead evaluation '''It is detailed enough to understand the importance of the topic, it is not repetitive and all the contributions are relevant to the topic. 7/10'''

Content
Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant to the overall topic. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the information added is up -to-date, but the article references two outdated sources (one from 1998 and the other from 2002). Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content added is relevant to the topic. Content evaluation '''The content is relevant, consistent and well-organized. 9/10'''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes because one cannot guess the perspective of the contributor and the language used was very formal and unbiased. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? '''No, there were not any claims that appeared to be biased towards one side. The article uses formal and careful language''' Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the article provided a clear reflection of different elements of the topic. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? No, the article does not make any claims on behalf a group, the contributor uses neutral language and presents various aspects of the topic.''' Tone and balance evaluation '''Some sections of the article are more detailed, but this is expected as this is only the first draft of the overall article. Each sections adds to the article and all perspectives are included and presented. 7/10'''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all new content is backed up by a reliable source. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources reflect the available literature on the topic. Are the sources current? Most are current sources and published within the last decade, but there are a few outdated sources such as the 1998 and 2002 sources. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work, but one source is missing a date. Sources and references evaluation '''Most the statements are attributed to various sources and most additional information is connected to a reliable source such as a journal articles. However, two sources are missing the date. 8/10'''

Organization
Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clear and easy to follow. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? '''Yes, there are some grammatical errors; for instance the lead includes the word But with a capital b when it is written in the middle of a sentence. The contributor should include commas to break up ideas and to eliminate run on sentences. Avoid errors by rereading work!''' Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is well structured, making it easier to follow and understand. Organization evaluation '''The content is in a sensible order and made sense. 7/10'''

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the images presented in the article contribute to the overall article. Are images well-captioned? Yes, the images are well-captioned and clearly showcase the actions carried out by cleaner fishes. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, these images do in fact adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the images were placed in related sections; for instance in the mimicry section there was a picture of a bluestriped fangblenny, which is a mimic of the cleaner fish. Images and media evaluation '''The images contributed to the overall article and from a reader's perspective all the images used were visually appealing. 9/10''' Guiding questions:

Overall
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the article is more complete, but the contributor should reread the article to avoid minor grammatical errors. What are the strengths of the content added? The article is very detailed and the author clearly addresses the mechanisms of cleaner fish and backs up the new content with reliable sources. How can the content added be improved? '''The article is well-organized and structured, now the contributor must add additional information to each section to complete the article. For instance, facultative cleaner fish is clearly addressed while obligate cleaner fish is only defined and briefly described.''' Overall evaluation The article is easy to follow, clearly explains the behaviour of cleaner fish and presents the information in a neutral manner. AnimalBehaviorStudent (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)