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.

Whose work are you reviewing?

KBfade24, Westcoastgal11, Wsvcis

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:KBfade24/Oncorhynchus kawamurae

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Oncorhynchus kawamurae

(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.)

I think the lead section does a nice job of laying out the key information on this species. I like that it starts off with the information about the presumed extinction and rediscovery, because it acts as an interesting "hook" for the topic. You could perhaps merge the second and third paragraphs, as they are each only 1 sentence.

The content is all directly related to the topic, and covers a variety of information. I especially like how detailed the history section is. Good work! It is also fairly up-to-date. You may have already done this, but because you said there was not much known about the species at the time of their rediscovery (e.g., about their behaviour and ecology), I would suggest targeting a search for some very recent resources to see if any more information has been discovered since 2014 (the date of your most recent resource). It would be great if you could find information to expand on those lesser known subtopics, but if not, the way you have referenced the lack of research is helpful for explaining that gap. It would also be interesting to know if there are any social factors to this topic; e.g., is the fish a source of food?

You have done a good job of keeping any bias or assumptions out of this article – the information all appears to be fact-based and neutral.

There is a good number of cited sources, most of which are from reputable, peer-reviewed journals.The news articles used are from reputable sources as well. Most of the pieces of information are sourced, with just a few exceptions (the first couple sentences in the second-to-last paragraph, for example) – I know this is a first draft, so just a reminder to be thorough with your citing for the final draft! It's great that you found a variety of sources to use. As you add more content, be conscious about trying to balance the sources that you pull information from. Currently it is pretty well balanced, but it did stand out to me that source #1 was used quite frequently. Finally, in the reference list, ""Extinct" Salmon Discovered in Japanese Lake" is cited twice (#2 and #4), and differently; I believe the first version looks more correct.

The sections included are thoughtfully done and the order of them is reasonable and has a nice flow. This is minor, but within "morphology and life cycle", I suggest putting the paragraph about their mature/pre-spawning morphology before the paragraph about their spawning morphology, as that would better represent the order of their life cycle. I personally would also like to see a distinct section for "habitat". You've done a good job of already including information on their habitat, but I think it would be nice to have a separate section for it, as that is a key piece of information people seek when looking up a species.

Overall I think the writing is well done! It is concise while remaining clear and informative. There are some minor grammar errors that can easily be remedied for the final draft; e.g., first paragraph of "History", second sentence, "though" should be "thought". The phrase "tends to" is used quite frequently – I think that it often isn't necessary and could be omitted in many cases, or changed to a different phrase to limit repetition. In general, I think the use of it somewhat weakens the phrases it is attached to, making the information seem less certain/factual.

It's definitely understandable that you haven't yet added images, but it would really uplift the final draft! Make sure to include captions and ensure they follow copyright regulations. Showing an image of a live mature fish would be great, as that is missing from the current, published Wikipedia page.

Overall your article covers a wide range of information on the topic that provides the reader with a general understanding. You have definitely expanded on and improved the original article! The order and flow of sections is good. I think it can further be improved upon by adding more section headers (e.g., a section on habitat), as well as images. Otherwise, most of my comments are easy fixes that could be addressed with a thorough read-through and edit.