User:Ben6010/Evolution of the eye/Osad3840 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ben6010.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ben6010/Evolution_of_the_eye?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):
 * Evolution of the eye (an Evolution of the Compound Eye section is not currently available publicly).

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead has been updated so that the title is appropriate to the content being added. The introductory sentence describes the compound eye effectively. However, the sentence is long. Rather than “different species,” one may omit the “different.” As well, the sentence is run-on. Ending the introduction at insects seems appropriate, to which one may add, “[The compound eye] essentially functions[…].” The ommatidia may be described in yet another separate sentence, where one may choose to insert the following, “[Ommatidia are] groups of photoreceptor cells […].” The article does well in describing various aspects of the existent article – photoreceptors, relevant species evolved to have compounds eyes, and the theorized evolutionary history of the compound eye are all mentioned. There is only brief mention of the compound eye (i.e. the Antarctic krill) within the Evolution of the Eye article - even with consideration for the separate Compound Eye page -  and various theories and subtle complexities are mentioned within the Lead that are not present in the main article. If the Lead was to be separated into smaller sentences, there would be increased conciseness.

Content:

The information added is indeed relevant to the main theme – evolution of the eye. There is brief mention of various classes of animals (i.e. simple life forms, evolutionarily advanced predators), but no particular discussion on the evolution of the compound eye in either insects or crustaceans within the original article. The sandbox article would add depth to the subject of evolution regarding the eye by including the theorized evolution of the compound eye. The information is cited within a decade of 2022, with the earliest articles dated to 2008. In this time, no new developments regarding the compound eye of insects or crustaceans have been made with notability. However, there may be benefit in researching any mentions of the current references in newer material to see if more have been added to the context of compound eye evolution. Content is relevant throughout, but more sentence breaks may be necessary. The content does not address any equity gaps – the addition to the article serves only to increase awareness on the theorized evolution of the compound eye.

Tone and Balance:

The content that has been proposed is neutral. There are no direct mentions of academics or scientists involved in researching the compound eye; no underlying opinions or discernable political motives are present. One may infer that due to the sole mentioning of only a single theory, this is the theory that must be supported. There may be value in providing insight into the origin of the theory or in alternative explanations for the evolution of the compound eye. Competing theories or criticisms of the mentioned theory would ensure the least amount of bias. This would also account for the possibility that representing only one theory may indicate overrepresentation of the theory within the sandbox article. Further insight into the origin of the compound eye, or into the evolution of various critical/unique aspects of this type of eye may improve a well-rounded position on the subject.

Sources and References:

The content mentioned in the draft is reliable. The content directly reflected the content of the referenced articles when cited – however, there are various detailed sections of the draft that still need to be cited. This would be for the purpose of navigating the cited material if certain aspects need to be further researched (i.e. where can it be empirically referenced that the compound eye has a wider range of vision than the single lens type?). The chosen sources are relatively thorough – some can be classified as meta-analyses, in which various relevant research covers a general topic (i.e. evolution of the compound eye) across various published articles. This would also indicate that there is mention of empirical work from a spectrum of authors. There is no particle mention of marginalized academics or grants supporting marginalized individuals within the referenced articles. The sources are current – they have been published within the last decade. The links to each source work to provide access to journals in their entirety.