User:Chef Long Johns/Tamoya haplonema/Skeuwter Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Chef Long Johns (love the username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chef%20Long%20Johns/Tamoya_haplonema?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Current article doesn't exist.

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.)

Lead

 * 1) The lead reflects the new information that was added, although it is a bit short.
 * 2) The lead does include a good introduction sentence, but there is an error Tamoya is a genus not a family.
 * 3) The lead does include information on all of the major sections, and it does have good information.
 * 4) The lead does include information that is not in other parts of the article. (you briefly talked about the morphology, maybe you could make a larger section talking about that?)
 * 5) The lead is very concise, and is informative, but I believe it is too short.

Content

 * 1) The content that was added was relevant and to date.
 * 2) I believe that you are missing some content, all of the sections feel pretty short, and there are some topics that I believe you good to add. You could talk about the jellies life cycle and morphology.

Tone and Balance

 * 1) The information is concise and neutral, there isn't any bias.

Sources and References

 * 1) All the information that was added was backed by reliable sources, and the information in the article is accurate to what the sources say.
 * 2) The sources used are thorough and to date.
 * 3) The sources are good and can all be accessed via the links, although it believe that this article doesn't meet the assignments source requirements.

Organization

 * 1) The content that was added was concise, well written, and easy to read. Good job.
 * 2) I wasn't able to find any major spelling or grammatical errors, and all of the topic sections were organized well.

Overall impressions

 * 1) I believe that this is a great start, but I believe that this article is missing quite a bit of information. There are lots of areas where you could added information, but I am glad you talk about how this jellyfish  interacts with humans, as well as how to treat stings from the jelly. I also think that your article would benefit from adding links, like this one of the genus the jelly fish is in, Tamoya. You can add links by clicking on the chain link next to the cite button. Overall, you did a good job just make sure to get a couple more sources, and to add a bit more to the lead.