User:Cheny2/Ulva australis/Linktg Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Cheny2), I cannot find the other group member's name


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cheny2/Ulva australis


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ulva australis (currently outdated compared to draft)

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.)

Fair warning: I am very nitpicky with wording. I am not trying to write the article for you, it's just compulsive.

Overall, I think it is good, although I have some gripes. First and foremost, citations. I think most sentences containing factual information should have a citation. I understand that it feels awkward to cite the same thing over and over again, but I think don't like how in the 'application in environmental protection' section there is only one citation at the very end, even if the info all came from the same source. It just feels wrong. I would even consider finding some other source to throw some piece of information in just to have an excuse to cite something else in the middle of the article.

Also in the lead section there are multiple things listed coming from different citations (... medicine, and pharmacology.) and all the citations come at the end, but later in the 'application in biotechnology' section things are similarly listed but all the citations come after their info (antioxidant [14]). I don't know if one is right, but I would pick one style and stick to it.

The content is all relevant, and unbiased. It introduces multiple viewpoints at the end of the Origin section which is good. Content seems to accurately reflect what the sources say and the citations work. Contains sources from all over the world. There are multiple sections where wording could be improved, some of which I address directly and others I do not. It feels unnatural at points. I think wording is one of the weaknesses of this article. Well organized other than I would like a description/morphology section. I would love a picture of living Ulva australis, however I am now well aware of the pain it is to get a photo for wikipedia, so I get not having it. Clearly notable, good number of sources although not distributed evenly throughout the content. Could link to more wikipedia articles especially in the biotech section.

I think the main strength is that you clearly know what you want to say from the sources. The main weakness is the wording. Wording is of course difficult to fix. I think you should perhaps try to show it to someone you know who writes well and ask for detailed specific feedback and possible changes.

Lead

There is no lead section in your sandbox draft, so my critique of the intro is based off the current article: I think the lead focuses too much on morphology (overly detailed) and understates its applications. I think the morphology/description should go under its own subheading like it does for most organisms, instead of being in the lead section. The applications are quite interesting, so tell us more about them in the intro.

"Ulva rigida has sometimes been confused with this species." maybe: sometimes Ulva australis is confused with Ulva rigida

Origin

change "characters" to 'characteristics' in the first sentence.

'by studying' not "from studying"

you switch from U. australis to Ulva australis and then switch back. Pick a style and stick to it.

second paragraph could use some rewriting

Application in Environmental Protection

There are a number of things in this section that I think could be worded better. Could be substantially more consise.

at the very end where you say "use" it is somewhat unclear. State the "use" you mean.

feel weird to have so much info and only one source, but if thats the way it is it's fine I guess.

Application in Biotechnology

could link to a lot of wikipedia articles here, which would be cool.

you mention T2 diabetes twice which can be condensed. Overall I think the paragraphs could be combined because I cannot tell what makes them distinct exactly. Maybe have 1 section about chemical, 1 section about biological/medical applications.