User:Ahmedisgr8/Mizuhopecten yessoensis/Nchardy Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

KuanLin24, Ahmedisgr8


 * 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
Lead:

-The information included in the lead appropriately reflects the content of the article for the most part, and there is a clear introductory sentence that tells readers what the article will be about.

-The lead is concise and only includes relevant information, but I'd suggest expanding on the yessotoxins later in the article since it's included in the lead but not mentioned again.

-The wording/organization of the lead section seems a bit disjointed, so it may be better to shift the order. I think moving the third sentence to be the second sentence and combining the last sentence into the first paragraph would sound nice.

Content:

-All content added is relevant to the topic and interesting.

-Added content seems to be up-to-date, as many of the sources are from the last few years.

-It would be great to see you expand on the yessotoxins that you mentioned in the lead in the rest of the article.

Tone and Balance:

-The tone is neutral and unbiased as it should be,

-The article appears to be appropriately balanced, with nothing that was included being over or underrepresented.

Sources and References:

-Sources are current and all appear to be from reliable peer-reviewed journals.

-The links to the sources all work.

-There seem to be a couple more sources on google scholar about reproduction and cadmium/copper exposure, so those could be interesting to include in the article if you're able to access them.

-I'm not sure if this is necessary or not, but it might be helpful to cite the sources more frequently within paragraphs so that it's more clear where all of the information is coming from.

Organization:

-The article is very well-organized overall; you did a job dividing it into sections.

-Some of the sentences are a bit wordy. For example, many of the sentences start with "it was established that..." or something along those lines, but it may be more clear and concise to remove those and just state the informational part of the sentence.

-I did not notice any spelling errors.

Images and Media:

-The image enhances the article.

-The placement of the image is visually appealing.

-The caption is informative and appropriate for the article.

For New Articles:

-The page seems to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and there are enough sources to create the article.

-The article includes a good amount of sources, although it may be helpful to add a few more if available to expand the article (as mentioned in references section).

-The layout of the article looks consistent with other Wikipedia articles.

-You did a great job linking the article to other related pages.

Overall Impressions

-The organization/layout of the article is really good and all of the information you added is relevant and interesting.

-I like how you linked a lot of other pages to the article, especially since it's a new article.

-It would be great to see a few more areas expanded on, such as reproduction and/or the yessotoxins.

-Some of the wording could be a bit more concise/clear for readers.