User:Invertebrate Zoology/Irukandji jellyfish/Vertebrates.for.Invertebrates Peer Review

General info
InvertebrateZoology
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing.
 * User:Invertebrate Zoology/Irukandji jellyfish - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists).
 * Irukandji jellyfish - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes.
Lead


 * It does not appear that the original article had a designated Lead section to begin with, however, there were two paragraphs at the very beginning of the Wikipedia article that gave a general overview of the species being written about. One of those beginning paragraphs is where the user chose to add in some details for their article draft.
 * The introductory sentence of the Lead introduces what the species is, and throughout the Lead there are mentions of some major concepts for the species. The Lead in the original article appears to be a little overly detailed, so perhaps the student could trim down some details so that they can be more focused upon in the rest of the article if they would like!

Content


 * The content that the student added to the article is relevant to the knowledge of the species.
 * The content that the student added appears to be up to date.
 * There is some content missing from the article that the student could perhaps elaborate more on if there is information available, such as the diet, reproduction, and the life cycle. I think the addition of this information would further improve the article, as long as there are studies out there that support it!

Tone and Balance


 * The content added to the article is in a neutral tone.
 * The content added does not appear to present bias.
 * The content added does not appear to try and persuade the reader.
 * The original article focuses heavily on the negative effects of this species on humans, perhaps the student could add some more information about any positive effects that the species has (if there are studies that support it!)

Sources and References

Organization
 * The new content has associated citations linked to it.
 * The content does accurately reflect what the cited sources say.
 * The sources do reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * One of the sources is from 2022, one is from 2013, and the other is from 2008. One source is very current, the other two are a little less current but still are not very old.
 * Each source has more than 3 authors who contributed to the piece, so there is some diversity.
 * The three sources utilized appeared to be all peer-reviewed scientific journals.
 * The three sources utilized all had working links.
 * I noticed one of the sources added has a "Check Date Values" error notification, so I would look into that.
 * There are a couple suggestions that I have. The sentence regarding how much the stings cost the Australian government seems to be pretty similar to what is written in the original research article, so I may add more of your own take on it, so Wikipedia doesn't see it as copyright. I also think that that is an interesting addition to the article and if you can pursue it more that would be great, however, I think that it feels a little misplaced being added in after the article discusses the habitat of the species. Another suggestion I have is that I think with the second piece of information you added about the delayed effects, perhaps you could pull more from that cited article and explain the effects on the cardiovascular system.
 * I also wanted to mention that there was no bibliography available for me to view, but it looks as though the 3 sources linked in your sandbox are the ones you have found yourself.


 * The content added is well written, however, as I mentioned above, I think that the first piece of information added is worded very similar to the research article, so maybe try to add more of your own take on the information.
 * The added content does not appear to have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * I think the content added is well organized, however, I think that how much the stings cost the Australian government could be added into a different section, perhaps the section that is dedicated to the stings in the original Wikipedia article. I also think that the original Wikipedia article could be tweaked in terms of its organization if the student would so choose; I mentioned a few things regarding the Lead section and then perhaps just the addition of a couple new sections into the article not previously discussed if there is information available, which I believe I mentioned in the Content section!

Images and Media


 * The student did not appear to add any images to the article, but I think that the original Wikipedia could use some images! Perhaps an image of what the stings look like, or a map of the species range, anything like that!

Overall Impressions


 * I think the content added definitely gave the article some more completion, but I also think the article could use some more vital information added other than the original two findings.
 * The strengths of the content added are that the first introduced piece of information is a gateway into possibly an even deeper revelation about how this species affects the Australian government (maybe there are some affects this species has on other marine species too that you could look into!) The second piece of information added was a good introduction into how dangerous the venom truly is of this species, which can then be found in more detail further down in the article.
 * I know I mentioned some improvements throughout the peer review, but overall, I think that the original article could use more information in previously undiscussed topics, as long as there is research done that can support that information. Even with the other suggestions I made, I think this is a great start to your article additions!