User:Jdx84/Symphurus thermophilus/Fordaqq Peer Review

General info
(provide username): Jdx84, Leahgkim
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Sandbox page: User:Jdx84/Symphurus thermophilus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Symphurus 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.)

-The first section discusses taxonomy and does not provide a lead describing the new information they added. I think a concise 2 or so sentence lead describing the paper and new information would be beneficial to add.

-The content added is relevant. For the biology and ecology and distribution and habitat sections I only saw source 7 was added however it is a new source and is relevant.

-The content is neutral, without bias and persuasion.

-Can you find more sources to describe the feeding? How does the organism ingest and then expel the sediment from their gills or gut? What type of infaunal prey do they target?

-The distribution and habitat is very clear and contains great information. Can you add links for the Daikoku and Kasuga-2 vents, or describe where they are located (which ocean?). I think this will help provide more context for where the species is found.

-Can you describe the 80 images mentioned in the last sentence of the page? Images done with what technology, over what time period?

-Great organization and structure. I like how you broke down the sections and used subheadings. Clear and concise information.

-I know you asked for grammar checks, but grammatically it is very well written! Overall, if you can just add more information (if sources have more information to add) then that would be great! If sources do not have more to add, I think it was still a great contribution to the website!