User:BI496Editor/Starry triggerfish/Kaywhyy Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BI496Editor


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:BI496Editor/Starry triggerfish
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Starry triggerfish

Lead Section
Lead section was not included/edited in the first draft.

'' Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic? ''

The current introductory sentence could be shorter and a bit more concise. I think it should be edited to not include words that the general public would not be familiar with such as 'oviparous' and instead speak more about how the fish can be categorized or where it is found.

'' Does the lead include a brief descriptions of the article's major sections? ''

The current lead section makes no mention of the sections that were included in the edit, specially on it's economic use. Its use as a packaging substitute is really cool and should be mentioned in the lead :)

'' Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? ''

The lead could use more detail and more flow. The current one mostly just has a bunch of facts about the fish strung together. I think it could be edited to have more flow instead of jumping around from fact to fact, and include more relevant information to the article such as the economic uses that were added in the first edit.

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes! Most of the content added was very relevant to the topic and was a great addition to the article. I feel like to improve these sections, it could be worth cutting out some things that are not as relevant to the species. For example, you introduce the packaging industry section talking about the demand for consumer goods and plastics that end up in landfills which isn't particularly relevant to the species itself. I think this information could be reframed to be more concise and placed later in the section, versus being the opening lines of the paragraph.

'' Is there content missing or content that does not belong? ''

You focused on the economic use of the fish which was a great addition to the article! Still, the article is lacking more robust sections on a lot of basic information about the fish such as where it is found geographically, what habitats it prefers, its eating habits, etc. The sentences that are currently included about these topics in the article also don't have citations so it could be worth looking into that more and finding publish research on this information.

Tone and Balance
'' Is the content added neutral? ''

There are a few sentences that come off as not neutral:

"Many people are starting to understand the value of eating health, thus is the demand for protein"


 * Think this sentence could be reworded to make more sense when reading through the firs time.

"As the demand for consumer good is increasing and it's easier to get those products delivered to our houses..."


 * Should change the word 'our' to something more neutral such as just 'delivered to the home'. Also need to support the claim that the demand for consumer goods are on the rise.

"Using trypsin from Albacore tuna liver, Sripokar et al. (2019) conducted a study..."


 * I think in-text citations should only be done in number form with Wikipedia's citation form, instead of referencing studies done directly in the text.

'' Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? ''

Could be considered biased towards the use of marine fibrillar collagen instead of current means. Could be reworded to become more neutral by discussing this kind of packaging as an alternative to traditional plastics and cardboards, while still discussing the benefits, instead of the superior option.

Editing Notes:

- 'stray trigger fish' in first paragraph; should be starry and I think triggerfish is one word

- A couple double spaces in first and second paragraphs

- 'piractical' last sentence of first paragraph

Sources and References
All links to the references work. References are from reliable sources (peer-reviewed articles) with very in-depth research on the topic at hand. They are current since the oldest article is from 2016. They are also written by a diverse spectrum of authors as no authors are repeated and they represent historically marginalized individuals such as many women scientists.

The sources chosen are thorough and well represent information on the paragraphs written about in the Wikipedia article (i.e. the fish's use as a packaging alternative and the health benefits of the fish). However, I couldn't access the full article for reference 3 "Molecular characteristics of collagen extracted from the starry triggerfish skin..." so I cannot fully check the content of this article and it is reflected accurately in the written paragraphs. However, the other two references are accurately reflected in the written article and there are no clear signs of plagiarism.