User:Iz Nguyen/Deep sea fish

§  Wikipedia Article Title

o   Deep Sea Fish

§  Topic

o   Deep Sea Fish vision

§  Draft

o   RH1 opsin is a gene that assists living species to see in the dark or dim lighting. While most vertebrates usually have one RH1 opsin gene, there are numerous deep sea fish that have more than one RH1 gene. These special characteristics could serve as an explanation to deep sea fishes’ capabilities to see in the deep depths of the ocean.

§  Citations

o   Elizabeth Pennisi et al. “In the Deep, Dark, Ocean Fish Have Evolved Superpowered Vision.” Sciencemag, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 10 May 2019, www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/deep-dark-ocean-fish-have-evolved-superpowered-vision.

o   Musilova, Zuzana, et al. “Vision Using Multiple Distinct Rod Opsins in Deep-Sea Fishes.” Sciencemag, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 10 May 2019, science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6440/588/tab-pdf.

§  Where to add

o   Within the Deep Sea fish article on Wikipedia, I think that my draft—with more information— should be added under the characteristics section after the third paragraph and before the fourth paragraph. The third paragraph starts to talk about deep sea vison and their capabilities, however, it does not go into detail about the RH1 opsin gene. The fourth paragraph starts to talk about their life cycle, so I think it would be best after the third paragraph to flow better.

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155                                                       Your name: Anthony C.

Article you are reviewing: Deep See Fish


 * 1) First,     what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that     impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear     way? It explains the environment and biology of the category of species     well. I liked how through most of categories about the specific fish were


 * 1) What     changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those     changes be an improvement? See question 3


 * 1) What's     the most important thing the author could do to improve the article. I     would maybe do the “addition” on either Lanternfish or Endangered species     because they are both the shortest sections on the article.


 * 1) Did     you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be     applicable to your own article? If so, what? Sadly, no.


 * 1) Are     the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more     sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Specifically, does the information     they are adding to the article make sense where they are putting it? I think they should place their     information between “Characteristics” paragraph 1 and 2 or 2 and 3. That     is because both of those focus more on bioluminescence and the eyes.


 * 1) Is     each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject?     Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything     off-topic? No


 * 1) Does     the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one     particular point of view? No


 * 1) Are     there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the     best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such     as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No


 * 1) Are     most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as     textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published     authors? It appears to be reliable sources


 * 1) Are     there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may     lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single     point of view. I cannot tell because they have not properly cited which     article they used as a source.


 * 1) Are     there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you     can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source     listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!