User:Annavc3/Viperfish/Amacdo Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

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

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

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 for 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Annavc3

Link to draft you're reviewing
Viperfish
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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:

The lead mentions that viperfish have photophores on the ventral side of their body, but it does not mention bioluminescence explicitly. Since a whole bioluminescence section was added, it may be worth mentioning in the lead. Overall, however, the lead does give a good intro to the viperfish, but could use an overview of each section to come.

Content:

I appreciate how the first sentence in the bioluminescence section clearly states that that the Chauliodus species uses their bioluminescence for two main purposes, and that their anatomical structure is related to this function. This is a clear and concise way to start presenting the info. I liked how bioluminescence in three contexts on the fish was discussed (lure, ventral photophores, photo-microbes in visceral organs). I think perhaps a bit more info could be added about photo-microbes, just because it seems like the physiology/origin of this type of bioluminescence is quite distinct from the lure and ventral photophores. I think some further explanation of the survival advantages of counter-illumination could also be helpful.

Tone and Balance:

The content added seems neutral and scientific, without bias.

Sources and References:

All information is attributed to a reliable source and the information written in the sandbox seems to accurately reflect the information in the article, to the best of my understanding. Each article was written by a different set of authors, so the authors are diverse in that sense. While the representation of underrepresented authors could be better, deep sea biology is a small field to begin with, so diversity in the field is growing but not overwhelmingly positive yet, as we have discussed in class. The links work and sources are reliable.

Organization:

The content is well written and easy to understand. There is a spelling error of bioluminescence in the first sentence. The paragraphs are logically broken up.

Images and Media:

N/A

Overall Impressions:

The added content contributes a clear and simple explanation of how viperfish use bioluminescence. Perhaps a bit more detail could be added to each paragraph about how that specific type of bioluminescence contributes to the two main concepts that were introduced in the first sentence, attracting prey and avoiding predators.