User:Annavc3/Viperfish/Latkanybrian 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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Federico (FloppingFish)
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Annavc3/Viperfish?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Viperfish
Evaluate the drafted changes - Habitat and Reproduction Sections[edit]
- Lead
Lead was not updated.
- Content
The content added to the Habitat and Reproduction sections is accurate and up to date, with sources used as recent at 2023.
- Tone and Balance
The content added is not biased or polar in any way. There are certainly claims that are being made, but they are all based on the cited references. Consider revising some claims, however: "reportedly found off the northern Tunisian coast" my not be a string enough piece of evidence/worthy enough to include in a wikipedia page. No persuasive techniques were used
- Sources and References
Most of the sources are very recent which is good, reflecting the most updated information in the field. I would consider reviewing the "OCCURRENCE OF SLOANE'S VIPERFISH CHAULIODUS SLOANI (OSTEICHTHYES: CHAULIODONTIDAE) FROM THE TUNISIAN COAST (CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN)" source, however, to determine if this is a trusted source that reflects accurate information, or if there is another paper that contains this information. All of the links seem to work, and the authors seem to be from all over the world.
- Organization
The sections seem like they are organized very well, and the order of information presented makes sense and is fluid. I would personally not merge the migratory patterns and habitat sections, as I think that the information in each section is unique enough to deserve its own section. I would, however, consider adding more hyperlinks. You included a bathypelagic link, but not one for mesopelagic, which should also be one. I also think you should include one for epipelagic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Columbia River.
- Images and Media
There was no images or media included in the sandbox.
- Overall Impressions
Overall. thought very critical information regarding reproduction and habitat of the viperfish was included, all of which will contribute to improving the strength of the page for users in the future. Consider the few changes I presented and I think the edits for these sections are ready to be published. Great work!