User:Jblockychop/Lipid pump/Laurelceleste22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing

Lipid Pump article


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jblockychop/Lipid_pump?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: I think the lead is well-written, but I would try and explain the lipid pump and article content in a more simplistic way, as this is the first thing a visitor to the page will read. In addition, the sentences start with phrases such as "This means" and "Resultantly", which could be swapped with more neutral language. I'm sure others mentioned this as well but you have floating citations across the top of the Lead.

Content: Overall, great job on the Lipid Pump wiki page. It is a very comprehensive article that is well-written and cohesive.

I would try and be consistent with how you refer to copepod species, either using C. or writing out Calanus. In addition, deciding whether you want to write Calanus or Calanus spp., as the usage varied throughout the article.

Some small formatting suggestions. First, make sure you define acronyms the first time you use them (e.g. SST in Calanus section). Also, I would suggest a link to the NAO wiki page when you first use the acronym.

I noticed that diapause is first mentioned in the Ecology sub-section but not explained until the Diapause vs. Diel Migration section. I would either briefly explain diapause when the concept is first introduced or reorder the sections. Another option would be to link to the diapause wiki page in the ecology section when the term is first used.

In terms of content order, it may make sense move the Lipid Pump vs. Biological pump section to the top. Within that section, I would suggest clearly defining the lipid pump, using language similar to what is currently in the Lead. It could work well to have the entire section titled "Lipid Pump" and subsections be "Lipid Shunt" and "Lipid pump vs. Biological pump". Is there a graphic of the lipid pump that could be included in the article? Or one illustrating vertical migration? I also think that the Climate Impacts sub-section could be it's own major section within the article, as it's so important.

Some other suggestions include adding an image/graphic of major ocean regions to the Regional Differences section. Additionally, the carbon cycle box included in the article seems to have a lot of unnecessary information and it takes up a lot of space. I think it might be fine to just link to the Carbon Cycle wiki page instead of including the whole box.

Tone and balance: The article is written in a neutral tone and does not attempt to persuade the reader in one way or another. Nice job!

Sources: It looks as though there's an error with a source in the DVM sub-section as well as a few sources in that section that are not yet cited in wiki. Additionally, there are some placeholders that need to be replaced in the Impacts on Other Organisms section. The ecology section and climate sections could use more references, but more broadly, make sure that almost every sentence is cited.

Overall, great article and I feel as though I learned a lot from reading it. My suggested changes are mostly minor and have to do with content organization. I look forward to reading the final draft!