User:Goobglorp/Planktivore/Mr. Jotatohead Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Goobglorp)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Goobglorp/Planktivore


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * A very positive lead. As a reader, I know where the information is going to take me.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * The second sentence reads awkwardly, "Varying species and placements of these animals feed on all types of plankton such as bacteria, algae, and other phytoplanktons." I kind of know what you are trying to say I think, but it is just doesn't read that way.
 * Grammar* However, not all of the plankton that (is)→[are] filtered by these mussels (is)→[are] properly digested prior to excretion and in turn they disperse large amounts of inorganic nutrients into their ecosystem.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Tone definitely neutral, no biasedness was found. Written in such a way as to allow the reader to easily follow along and the wording was not too hard to understand.

Sources and References

 * Definitely a lot of great references to use with excellent quality of information.
 * The citation #4 for that statement doesn't do it justice. It is not bad, but as a reader, going to that page and going back to the text, they don't quite match. The paper that is cited discusses so much more on Dreissena than what the citation was used for, noting that their are filter feeders. Again, it's not "wrong," but it reads as a filler citation, just thrown in there.
 * Citation #5 is not a very good reference to use in this context, at least from the readers perspective. After following the source, the text does not match the source material from the wiki article. After comparing the two, it almost feels like, "why did you use it?" It might have more to do with the fact that all that was available to the reader was an abstract and summary, but the sentence it was used in citation did not match.
 * Citation #7 would be better off being placed after "Ponto-Caspian region,"
 * After reading the sources from citation #6 & #7, the information is weak and could definitely be strengthened by adding more information from these sources.

Organization

 * The two paragraphs are much too similar to be two separate paragraphs. It would benefit the content to put them together, since the second paragraph is essentially an example of the first.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Structure and placement of the image was not distracting at all and provides a good visual representation of the content.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

Mr. Jotatohead (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Mr. Jotatohead
 * Overall, the article seems to be more about mussels, especially Dreissena, than anything else. This is an issues because the title is "Effects of Planktivory on the Environment" and there is limited content overall that reflects the title. There are a few statements, but with the amount of citation/references, this section could be a lot stronger. I definitely want to clarify, compared to what the original article, there is a wealth of information in your article. There are just some sentences that need a little restructure (either a grammar or add supplemental information). For a draft, this is a really good start. The remarks were made to help strengthen what you have already put in to make it even better.