User:ZachT99/Frilled shark/Mehalkok Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

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? Fairly concise

A bit long, but overall it contained a lot of relevant information and provided a good base for the article. 8.5-9/10

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Well done, I also really liked the images! 9/10

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
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

Very neutral, solely focused on factual information. 10/10

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
Are the sources current? Yes
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? Yes

Well done, I also appreciated the external links tab where videos and other platforms are provided. 9/10

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? No
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Well structured, easy to read--the information is well formatted. 9/10

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
Are images well-captioned? Yes
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Great. Really helpful to have them and really well laid out. 10/10

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?

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
What are the strengths of the content added? It is a little hard to tell what was actually added by who, but from what I can see it looks like there were a lot of great sources.
How can the content added be improved? Maybe make it more concise in the beginning? And more pictures/videos? Those are always super interesting and helpful, but everything looks great!

This article basically follows all of the guidelines for a great wiki page! 9/10