User:JulesA27/Yeti crab/Fordaqq Peer Review

General info
(provide username): JulesA27, Rebeccar44, Oeys24
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Kiwa (crustacean) The group said they have been working on the main page of the article rather than the sandbox.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Kiwa (crustacean)

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.)

-Update the lead slightly just to add a sentence describing how you added information about adaptations, feeding behavior and diet. I think this could be done with just a sentence to lead readers into the main paragraphs.

-Yes, the content added is relevant and up to date. I checked sources 3, 12 and 13 and they were all current. The provided links worked.

-Content is not biased, and does not try to persuade. It is very informative and has a neutral tone.

-For the diet section the first two sentences are repetitive when it says. "The Yeti crab rely solely on symbiotic bacteria as their main food source. Since sunlight cannot provide the necessary fatty acids and carbon isotopes necessary for their survival, Yeti crabs rely solely on symbiotic bacteria as their main food source". This can replaced with more concise language in 1 sentence.

-For the adaptation first sentence, I do not think they need to say "As mentioned earlier in the "feeding behavior" section". I think they can just begin their sentence without the transition since the transition just adds extra words. Plus with the feeding behavior just 2 sections back, the information was still fresh.

-The content is extremely well organized with a clear structure. The subsections made it easy to read. They did a great job sectioning off their newly added work.

-They added key information using good sources.

-No added images to discuss.