User:Cece44444/Colossal squid/Lmoberley Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cece44444 and Kylevee0924


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Cecelia
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cece44444/Colossal_squid?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Kyle
 * User:Kylevee0924/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Colossal squid

(Sorry I had to do both of you on the same peer review, Wikipedia wouldn't let me open up a peer review template for Kyle and this is what Professor Olins recommended I do)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Cecelia:

I believe the content of both sections you proposed for this article was really well articulated and organized. The content is also neutral, and cited, indicating much of it came from valid peer reviewed journals and your manner of writing is not word for word or too closely aligned as it appears to summarize the articles.

The only mild concern I had was the term "This is important" in relation to the discussion of colossal squid being deaf and the implications of the characteristics of their eyes. While this is not biased language, I think that within Wikipedia's guidelines that indicating "importance" implies an inherent connection here, which may not be officially established but instead assumed. This is very minor, and was the only thing that I could possibly think might be changed.

Overall I think your proposed edits are great and well composed. Your references are fully functional (links work) and prevalent to the content you are publishing.

Kyle:

I think the inclusion of those two facts definitely contribute to the section, however I am curious to see if there was anything else you could contribute to the section besides the two statements, such as how they reproduce or how much offspring so you can perhaps contribute a whole paragraph since "Reproduction" would be an entirely new section for your article.

Your citation was perfect and the linked worked!