User:Gracieorwig/Chaceon quinquedens/Maddiet37 Peer Review

General info
Gracieorwig
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gracieorwig/Chaceon quinquedens
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Chaceon quinquedens
 * Chaceon quinquedens

* November 6th (11/6), no draft has been created by the author.

* November 10th

Lead: The lead appears to be the same as the one in the existing article, no edits have been made and no information added by the author. It includes an introductory sentence that is long-winded and could potentially be broken up to make it easier for the reader. Otherwise, there is enough detail in the information present to clearly describe the article topic.

Content: The Distinction section of the article contains information relevant to the topic, but it may be a better idea to include a description of the crab as well rather than just a comparison with other species. The second sentence is also a bit lengthy, so perhaps it could be split up. The last sentence should contain a citation rather than including a quote from an article. The Distribution and Ecology section of the article appears to have some information written by the author but other information directly from the existing article (although there was no bolded distinction for me to tell without comparing the two). I'm unsure what "redominates" is referring to in the first sentence, so perhaps it should be re-worded. This section also entirely lacks citations. The third sentence seems to be a mix of information written by the author and information from the original article. The added information is beneficial to the article but the sentence structure could be neater and include less commas. The middle of this section provides good information but once again the structure is a bit messy and the lack of correct capitalization makes it a bit challenging to properly read. The sentence starting with "In a certain tag experiment" should include a citation at the end. The Development section includes new information to the article and is a good start. Think about adding another sentence or two. Citations are also missing. The first sentence should also be "There are four" rather than "There is four" to make the sentence grammatically correct. The As Food section does not contain information contributed by the author, but was rather split from information preexisting in the article. The section contains an adequate amount of content and appears to have a citation in the article. However, the title of the section is a bit vague and could potentially be changed to something else. Finally, the Other Info section is similar to the aforementioned section due to the information coming straight from the article. Rather than having it in an "other" section, this information may mesh well under the Ecology section of the article. It may be beneficial to include the disease name (if it is known).

Tone & Balance: The content added is neutral with no claims towards a specific bias.

Sources & References: Three references are listed at the bottom of the draft, but there are no in-text citations to know which article goes with what information. They are also not clickable links. Two are rather recent peer reviewed journals but one is quite old and may include some outdated information

Organization: In terms of article structure, the author has divided the article into a framework of multiple sections with different headers to allow for easier access of information. However, there may not be a need for all of the sections (such as "Other Info") if there isn't enough content. Throughout the article, there are numerous grammatical errors that may hinder the reading process. There are also a few run-on sentences that have too many commas present and may benefit from simply being split into two sentences. Adding some in-text links for words such as ontogenetic can also help clean up the article, as it would allow for the removal of the "(life-cycle)" after the word ontogenetic.

Images & Media: No pictures have been added by the author, but two are already present in the existing article. It may be helpful to add an image such as a distribution map, but it's not necessary if none exist.