User:Chuckkillsbucks/Benthic comb jelly/Vertebrates.for.Invertebrates Peer Review

General info
Chuckkillsbucks
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing.
 * User:Chuckkillsbucks/Benthic comb jelly - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Benthic comb jelly - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes.
Lead


 * It does not appear that the original article had a designated Lead section to begin.
 * Perhaps the student could add an updated lead section with a brief overview of the article if they would like!

Content


 * The content added is relevant to the topic of the species.
 * The content added appears to be up to date.
 * The original article does not have information on topics such as reproduction, or a life cycle. The original article also does not have a lot of information regarding the habitat or the description of the species. These are all possibilities, if there is information available, for the student to elaborate on if they so choose!

Tone and Balance


 * The content added to the article is in a neutral tone.
 * The content added does not appear to present bias.
 * No viewpoints appear to be overrepresented, however the sections regarding description and habitat feel a little unrepresented, so that leaves some room for adding in any potentially available information.
 * The content added does not appear to try and persuade the reader.

Sources and References


 * The new content appears to be backed up by a reliable scientific article.
 * The new content has the associated citation linked to it.
 * The added content does reflect what the cited source is saying, but I think that is mainly because it is a direct quote from the original research article. I could be wrong, but I do believe I remember that Wikipedia advised against using direct quotes, so I think it would be beneficial if the direct quote was taken out and the same information is added in its place but in the student's own wording.
 * The source does appear to reflect literature on the topic of benthic communities; however, it does not appear to directly mention the species being studied (I could be wrong, but I couldn't find a specific species mentioned, just an overarching theme).
 * The source added is current.
 * The source added has multiple authors who collaborated on the article.
 * I am only able to see one source added to the article, and I believe it was suggested to add 3 articles, so I believe it would be beneficial to look into a few more peer-reviewed research articles that can further add in information!
 * The link to the article does work.
 * I wanted to mention that perhaps the choice of citing for the newly added content could be improved by removing the in-text citation and adding the citation link instead.

Organization


 * I think the content added is organized and well written.
 * I do see a misspelling of the word 'and' within the sentence "However, characterizing the habit and food...." Other than that, the content added appears to have good grammar.
 * I think the content added does belong in the section it was added in. However, for the original article itself, I think there's a possibility for a Lead section to be added, and perhaps taking the small bit of information at the top of the page and labeling it as 'Habitat' or something along those lines.

Images and Media


 * The student did not add any images, but I think the article could benefit from images if it is possible to add some. I would assume an image of the species itself would be difficult to come across, but perhaps adding something like that or a map that shows the habitat in which the species can be found!

Overall Impressions


 * I do believe the content added has improved the quality of the article.
 * The content added is strong because it gives more detail than what was offered in the original article. The original article touched upon the fact that there are questions surrounding the food of the species, and then the added content better explains why there are questions to begin with; it is hard to gather more information with limited access to their habitat!
 * I believe that the content added could be improved with the suggestion I made earlier in the review about perhaps removing the direct quote and re-adding the information but in your own words. I also think that with more sources looked into, then hopefully there could be more content added in the original article in some of the areas that are not previously mentioned; though I do understand more information may be difficult since the species is not easily accessible.
 * Overall, I think the information added to the original article was a great addition to the Wikipedia page!