User:Ahmedisgr8/Mizuhopecten yessoensis/Eleniiii Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ahmedisgr8, KuanLin24


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Mizuhopecten yessoensis


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

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: very good: you have a nice short introduction of your species that also sets the tone for the rest of the article.

The content is relevant and informative. However, some details or info seem to be missing but that may be due to not enough papers for this species, which would not be your fault.

The tone is neutral and it seems that you are not making any claims. Your include citations from the papers.

I believe there is organization, although the sections are not that many for the reader to have a broad view of the species (again maybe because of the # of papers available)

Nice images!!!

-       Overall, I would say that your article is good and informative. It is a little bit short but maybe it is because you could not find a lot of information out there.

-       I do have some suggestions to make. I hope they can help you out:

o   “Its tissues bioaccumulate algal yessotoxins, which are studied extensively.”

I would get rid of which.

o   I would not use past tense in the development section

o   I would not use “was found” under predation section.

o   In general, try to avoid using language that showcases that you have read from papers and come from experiments. The reader would not be interested on what was the experiment and how they found out (if they are they can look at sources and read the article themselves). You want to tell them what you learned from the paper.

Great job!!!