User:DFM021/Vannellidae/Ngeer20 Peer Review

General info
DFM021
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:DFM021/Vannellidae
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Vannellidae

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead is concise. You could maybe add a note about parasitism, since that is a major section.

Content:

The content appears to be up to date and relevant to the scope of the article.

Tone and Balance:

The section on parasitism could maybe be worded in a more matter of fact way in the sense of what did the source article actually find in their study? It is unclear whether the source article actually found them to be parasitic or if it appeared that they had the possibility of being parasitic toward rainbow trout, and if so they could pose a significant problem for farming.

Sources and References:

All links for sources except 3 work. Maybe consider finding a new source for the information in the article that came from this website, or remove it if you cannot find an alternate source. All other sources come from peer reviewed journals and appear to be reliable and well representative of the topic at hand.

Organization:

The content is well organized. I would consider going through the article and checking to make sure the sentences are to the point and just stating the information without unnecessary wording. I find wikipedia articles that have shorter sentence structure throughout more digestible. That could just be personal preference but it is an easy way to clean up wordiness!

Images and Media:

There are no images for this article.

Overall Impressions:

I think that you made some great additions to this article! I like that the additions come from recent discoveries so it makes the article current with the times. I think that drawing the important specifics from the article on parasitism could improve that section, because it does seem a little vague and I would like to know more!