User:Baileyld/Jorunna/Qian Mateo Peer Review

The lead is concise and informative and gives the common name of the species that the average reader might be more familiar with. The lead also gives brief taxonomic information about the species. Does not give a brief description of the article's major sections.

The article is separated into good subcategories: description, taxonomy, distribution, reproduction, and survival. Again, nothing is cited so I can not tell whether the information here is up-to-date and/or relevant to the sea bunny. All information presented belongs to and does not distract from the point of the article.

The content is neutral and written with an informative voice, not persuasive.

The organization of this article is great, all the categories make sense and flow in a logical manner. I would take out words like "unfortunately" and other emotive adjectives cause it gives too much emotional presence in a scientific article. But the information is great. The biggest concern is citing, they do have a reference page but they do not refer to the source with in-text citations. Also, add more links in the content to other wiki pages to help the reader become informed of uncommon terminology.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)