User:Dibiasei/Lampocteis/BNg22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kirstenstanis


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Dibiasei/Lampocteis


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

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.)

I like how you reformatted the lead section. The first sentence provides the reader with a clear understanding of your topic and the rest of the first paragraph provides the reader with useful background information. The second paragraph of the lead section provides the reader with a good roadmap for the rest of your article; there were brief mentions of its mesopelagic habitat, its different colors that it uses for predator-prey interactions, and its size and cilia. The last sentence of the second paragraph mentions that the origin of ctenophores has been controversial, but only one possible explanation is provided. I think it would be beneficial to mention the other hypothesized explanations so that the reader gets a more encompassing understanding of the topic. This would also ensure that the article is not trying to persuade the reader toward one point of view. I would also have the order of the topics mentioned in the lead mirror the order of the sections in the body of your article.

I suggest that you put the morphology section after the lead, so that from the lead section you dive into the structure of the Lampocteis, how the morphology is unique, a description of its basic structure and any specially adapted morphological structures. Then, I would go to your habitat section.

I think that your added Habitat section was very helpful and a valuable addition. The original article only mentions that the Lampocteis lives in the mesopelagic zone. I enjoyed how you began with the depth ranges where it is typically found and the greatest depths at which specimens have been found. Then in your second paragraph of the section, you transitioned to specific geographic locations where they have been found. I would add back the internal wikipedia link to the mesopelagic zone so that readers can use the link to obtain more general information concerning the environmental conditions of that region. If the Lampocteis inhabits a specific niche in the mesopelagic region, I think it might be helpful to mention the environmental and ecological challenges it faces and make some connections between these known adaptations that you have already described morphologically and the environmental challenges it faces. Then I would go to the predator-prey section.

I think that you are still working on the predator-prey section, but I would keep the sentences from the original version's lead section that "The deep color of its belly may mask the animal's bioluminescence to hide it from potential predators. ". I think this provides a good explanation of how these colors are used, unless your group has other sources that disagree and provide a different explanation. In that case it would be good to provide both perspectives if this view has not been disproven. I would mention the Lampocteis's main predators and its prey, how accessible they are, etc. I would also make any connections between the already mentioned morphological adaptations to its advantages in the predator-prey interactions, and add any behavioral adaptions that impact these interactions as well.

If you have time and the sources, then a section on reproduction would be interesting, but I would prioritize the above sections. I would probably skip the expansion of the original discovery of the Lampocteis since I don't think this will greatly impact the reader's understanding of the species. The same goes for the controversy regarding its ancestry. I do like a good story about controversy but I would prioritize the other four body paragraphs first and do this section if its taxonomy is really interesting and impactful.

Your sources look good, but source 2 by Zhao needs its date to be changed. Wiki requires year-month-day, and yours only has the year and month at the moment. This should be a simple fix.