User:Jamesmarg/Venus' flower basket/Cece44444 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@Jamesmarg


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesmarg/Venus%27_flower_basket?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template#Article_body


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Venus' flower basket

Lead
I agree with your proposed edit to move the paragraph about the shrimp pair to a different section. Maybe you could make a new section about mutualism or behavior? (I saw your note in Canvas that other group members are editing the lead while you focus on other sections.)

Content
The content added in the Habitat and Anthropomorphic Applications is both relevant and concise. The sources added are up-to-date in a reasonable time span for deep sea research. I think it would be helpful to add more information on how the organism eats, its typical life cycle, and its population density in the inhabited areas.

Tone and Balance
The tone of your updates is professional and scientific, and does not contain any biases or persuasive elements. All added content is neutral.

Sources and References
The added sources are functional (all links work). However, the in-text citations are not present within the article, and appear above the References template section. Also the existing references on the article page appear to be incomplete, especially references 1 and 2. There is also some information in the preexisting Morphology section that lacks citations.

The new sources are relevant and thorough, and you summarized them succinctly without repeating the wording of the actual source. All added content is backed up with a solid list of peer-reviewed sources.

Organization
The added content is concise and easy to read. There is one incomplete sentence in the Morphology section ("Additionally, making feeding more efficient for the shrimp"). It was helpful that you added in hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages, like the biomimicry page! There are no other grammatical or spelling issues. The added content is well organized, but I think some of the existing content in the Morphology section could be separated into different categories or at the least different sub-headings.

Images and Media
None added.

Overall Impressions
The added content enhances the applicable sections of the article and makes the information more complete, especially in the Habitat section. The notes about feeding efficiency within the Morphology section could be a little more detailed for clarity. The additions to Habitat and Anthropomorphic Applications are strong and positively change the article for this organism.

Nice job!