User:Jderrico2022/Bathymodiolus thermophilus/BNg22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Isabelle.chan


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jderrico2022/Bathymodiolus thermophilus


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bathymodiolus thermophilus

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I noticed that your group didn't edit the existing Lead section. I suggest that you use the existing lead as the first paragraph of your lead section and then add an additional section that provides a brief overview of the topics that you will discuss in the body sections of the article.

I enjoyed the additions you made for the Distribution section. I believe that for Wikipedia you shouldn't summarize research papers. Rather, you should report their results, discussions, and conclusions and then cite the paper from which you got that information. This will provide the reader with the key take aways and information. The reader can go read the cited paper if they want more information such as how the experiments were conducted, etc. This will also lead to a more natural flow to your article instead of jumping from one paper to the next discussing their experimental design. For example the first paragraph in the Distribution section discusses the paper by Won et al. I suggest you have it read: Specific geographical barriers exist along the mid-ocean ridge system that impede gene flow between populations along the ridge-axis [1].... Instead of starting with their hypothesis and walking the reader through their experiment, go straight to their conclusion. By having read and analyzed the papers you are using and including their findings in your article, you have deemed their results to be valid and the information they convey as useful. Your reader can go back and read the paper you cite if they need further information or don't agree with the information.

I suggest that your group choose a different name for the "Biology" section. I found this header to be too broad and vague, and it didn't provide me with any insight into the topic that would be discussed in that section. It seemed from my reading that that section focused on the Bathymodiolus thermophiles' feeding. Perhaps you could title it something like "Symbiosis and Feeding".

Similar to my suggestion above about reformatting the writing from a summary of experiments to mentioning the factual conclusions, I suggest doing the same type of revisions for the Evolution and Phylogeny section as well. I felt that this section read as if you were trying to argue that a particular hypothesis was right and you were stating that x, y, and z support this theory. If this theory that you are conveying has not yet been proven then you can provide evidence for that theory, but you need to also convey the other theories that scientists have suggested and provide evidence for them as well. However, if the theory you mention has been proven then be more definitive in your delivery of the information instead of saying that x suggests y, etc. These suggestions will ensure that your article is neutral and not heavily biased toward one position.

I also noted that sources 2,3,4 all need their dates to be revised as indicated by the red text. I have found from my own experiences that for most sources Wikipedia required the year, month, and day for the date.