User:Cheny2/Ulva australis/Ccbeigh Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cheny2 and partner (not sure of username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cheny2/Ulva_australis&action=edit


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ulva australis

Evaluate the drafted changes
=== Quick note that I made some minor edits on the Sandbox page before I realized we had a Peer Editing Sandbox with questions. Nothing major was changed, I just improved some wording and made some grammatical edits. ===

Lead
The lead has been updated. They changed the first sentence to indicate who discovered the species and added some additional information that gave some brief information about the following sections. The lead includes a description of their species that is not found anywhere else in the article. I can't think of anything to improve in the Lead.

Content
The content of the article is good and related to the topic. The only thing related to content that I would change is explain a little more why Ulva pertusa is relevant in the Origin section. It's a little jarring to go from reading about one species of Ulva to suddenly reading about another species.

Tone and Balance
The tone of the article is balanced. There is no obvious bias present in the article and all the information is presented neutrally and with equal care.

Sources and References
All the information appears to be backed up by scientific journal articles. Most of the sources are within the last 10 years. All the links seem to work. I looked at some of the sources and the information in the article matches up with the information in the sources.

Organization
The article is well organized, however, there are some grammatical or faults errors that could be improved. In addition, some of the research they mention could be introduced in a better way. For example, it would be helpful if the reader has a good picture of how exactly U. australis is used before going into the details of its applications. It also might make some sense for Applications to be one section and have subsections (Environmental Protection, Biotech). For the Applications sections, it would be helpful for the information to be presented a little more clearly so that the average person could understand exactly how Ulva australis is used. I mentioned this earlier in the Content section, but the second paragraph of the origin section isn't explained very well.

Images and Media
There is one image added to this article and it is fair use. The image is clear (not blurry or distorted) and is related to the topic of the article. However, I would expand the caption to better reflect the context of the image. For example, where the image was taken, for what purpose, and additional information like if the seaweed is fresh in the image or dried out.

Overall Impressions
The overall content is good, but certain parts of the article have grammatical errors or awkward wording. In addition, I think the Origin and Applications sections need to be explained more clearly so that the average person could understand the information presented.