User:Ascholzc/Gorgonocephalus arcticus/Reece.Ciampitti Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ascholzc and Peterkwarren12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Gorgonocephalus arcticus


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Your article was very informative, and looking through the article history, has definitely been improved upon since it was a stub. All of the information on the wiki page was relevant to the species of basket star in some way.

The main criticisms our group had with the Gorgonocephalus arcticus article were in how your group organized sentences and information. Some sentences were very difficult to read, so we made some possible suggestions for ways to rewrite them to make them easier to understand. You also should organize and consolidate similar information to be grouped in the same paragraph, sentence, or section. The final criticism that our group had for your article was with your sources. Some of them (4 and 5) we had trouble accessing, so we couldn't provide feedback on them, but a couple of your sources did not contain the information that they were being cited for on your article (7 and 8).

The Gorgonocephalus arcticus article was otherwise very informative and contained interesting and relevant facts, though proper organization of your article would greatly improve the reading experience and ability for a reader to understand the information presented to them.

Here is a full detailed synopsis of what we think can be improved upon in your wikipedia article:

Introduction


 * Add the common name (Northern Basket Star) to the intro of the species


 * The gorgon reference should be removed as it is already on the genus page for Gorgonocephalus, also though it is still wikipedia, cut and paste is breaking the rules.


 * In the sentence: “Five gorgonocephalus species” gorgonocephalus should be turned into a wiki link to the genus page.


 * The second sentence in the second paragraph misspells the word star, and the last sentence is too short.


 * Skaagerak by Mortensen needs a citation


 * The entire second paragraph should be moved to a section titled History or something similar, doesn’t really belong in an introduction


 * In the third paragraph, change non parasitically to commensally, the third paragraph works as a good synopsis with the exception of the last sentence which is redundant and belongs in the feeding section.

Morphology


 * When referencing your species using its scientific name, consistently use italics and check your spelling for each instance it is used


 * Rewrite the 9.5% magnesium carbonate sentence to something along the lines of: “The composition of their skeleton is roughly 9.5% magnesium carbonate.”


 * Perhaps state what the remaining 90.5% or at least the majority remaining of the skeleton’s composition


 * The third sentence in the morphology section needs to be turned into a complete sentence, combining it with the fourth sentence is what we would suggest.


 * Instead of saying “like other echinoderms” narrow it down to other members of the class Ophiuroidea.  Also change taxa to class, taxa is too broad and doesn’t fit as well as class.


 * The last sentence of the first paragraph in the morphology section, remove the repetitive “of calcified”


 * Section section of morphology, check the spelling of your species name, you are missing a C


 * In the third section under morphology, “the branching of arms is repeated in the formation of smaller and smaller units” is repetitive and should removed


 * In the fourth section, the last two sentences can be combined into something like “G. Arcticus does not have intestines or an anus, instead the mouth leads to a saclike stomach, ending in a blind pouch.


 * Either include the description of what a blind pouch is or put a link to what it is. In the morphology section, the article jumps from bodypart to bodypart and revisits the arms and disc several times, consolidate the information by body part, perhaps leaving the mouth at the end as the next section is on Feeding

Feeding:


 * The second sentence in the Feeding section, looks like it was taken directly from the source word for word, even if it wasn’t, it should be rephrased.


 * The fourth sentence needs to be changed to “In addition to being suspension feeders, G. Arcticus is also able to actively trap prey using their extended arms”


 * This sentence: “Gorgonocephalus arcticus is associated with dwelling on hard substrates and create islands of similar hard substrate fauna when surrounded by unsuitable sandy substrates such as in the Fiords surrounding Baffin Island in Canada.” makes no sense and needs to be heavily reworded and probably split up, also this is more of an ecological rather than a feeding sentence.


 * That sentence also needs a source.  When we run through these edits together check that sentence for close paraphrasing.


 * The sentence after that one, remove stars after saying the species name, that’s an unnecessary word.  Also that sentence needs some minor rewording.


 * The last sentence of the first section under Feeding, change “curled” to ‘curl’.


 * The second section under Feeding, the first sentence needs to be heavily worded and split up into two sentences.  The second sentence is fine, and the sentences under it can really be moved to morphology as they cover anatomy and structure rather than behavior.

Ecology:


 * Ecology section, change “sib-tidal” to sub-tidal.  Also throughout the Ecology section, you refer to basket stars instead of your species.


 * Instead of saying “bottoms”, ‘they can live within a ride range of seafloor depths’.


 * Second to last sentence, remove the “or” between muddy and sea bottoms.


 * Change ‘they’ to the species name.

Reproduction:


 * For the Reproduction section, combine the first and third sentence.  In the second sentence, instead of using they, use the species name.


 * Either explain the bursae and slit or have a wikilink.

References:


 * Reference [1] works and provides correct information
 * Reference [2] works and provides information found in the wiki page
 * Reference [3] works and provides information found in the wiki page
 * Reference [4] is unknown, we do not have access to the full journal
 * Reference [5] is unknown, we do not have access to the full journal
 * Reference [6] is unknown, this citation is for a book though it is only cited once
 * Reference is [7] is cited twice, first instance is used correctly, information from second citation is not found in its respective source
 * Reference [8] is cited twice and neither have information that corresponds to the source