User:Jack.chaput/Box jellyfish/Lucia.liet Peer Review

General info
Jack.chaput
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Box jellyfish

Evaluation of the article
The lead of the article is good, but can be adjusted to more accurately reflect the content of the entire article. While it can be assumed that most readers would be primarily interested on the potential threat of this species venom, it may benefit from added detail to the distribution, habitat, and behavior of box jellies. Other considerations may include briefly describing some protective measures one can take against being stung.

The overall content of this article is incredibly extensive and detailed. There is a wealth of up-to-date references, and good distribution of sections focusing on individual aspects. I particularly appreciate the taxonomy section immediately following the lead, since this is an article for a broader clade, and this section is conveniently placed with links to particular families. This section lists that there are 51 species known as of 2018. While this is by no means outdated, have there been other sources reporting this more recently?

The section on distribution is clear and concise, but I wonder if there have been updates in the literature reporting Box Jelly distribution. The article states "Though box jellies are known to habitat the Indo-Pacific region, there is very little collected data or studies proving this." The article also goes on to mention that the first stinging report was in 2014, but there is no clear citation to this.

The first paragraph on behavior makes a claim on their hunting activity with citations to an "animal facts webpage." Is there is peer reviewed literature on this which can be cited instead?