User:DeVeggie314/Ocmulgee shiner/Ecologist-185526 Peer Review

General info
DeVeggie314
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:DeVeggie314/Ocmulgee shiner:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ocmulgee shiner

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.)

New/substantially rewritten text
What was done well: The article gives a good overview of what the fish species actually is, and gives a good background of some important characteristics of the species. Reading this helped me better understand what this species is.

What can be improved: Each section may benefit from adding sub-sections that discuss that quality in further detail. For example, for the Life History Traits section, maybe you could talk about some of the more common traits (reproductive strategy, lifespan, etc.)? If the information is readily available, maybe you could even talk about how those are similar/different to other fish in the region and in that family. For the Status section, it might help to discuss active conservation efforts for the species, if there are any. Maybe a section, or a paragraph in the introduction, to tell me about why I should care about this species would be helpful too. As far as

Added citations
What was done well: I couldn’t tell if the citations were new or not, but they all look like they’re from good-quality sources. I see three academic papers, a university webpage (which is presumably internally fact-checked), and a webpage from the IUCN which is a credible institution to cite.

What can be improved: The citations, as they’re currently listed, are good. I can imagine that as you flesh out some of the sections you’ll add more citations. As long as they’re of the same caliber as your current citations, you’re in good shape.

Connections to existing Wikipedia pages
What was done well: You linked out some good terms and vocab that might need a little bit more context. I think it's hard for us sometimes to evaluate papers from a general public point-of-view, since we've taken so many science classes and a lot of these concepts are second-hand nature to us now. I can tell you wrote the paper with that in mind.

What can be improved: Some of the terminology in the article is ecology-specific. That’s a good thing, but it may be difficult for someone with a non-science background. If a Wikipedia page isn’t available, maybe add context into the article itself.

General feedback, comments, questions
The article lays out a good foundation for future improvement. I’d run your article through a grammar engine like MS Word or Grammarly, but for the most part it looks good. Since your article is about a species, maybe some more pictures could help. More pictures of the fish, the geographic range, and an annotated diagram of the anatomy of the fish would all be helpful.