User:Juneauwang/Panulirus ornatus/EpirosBU Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Juneauwang Amhughes1138


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Juneauwang/Panulirus_ornatus?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Panulirus ornatus

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 think the lead could use some work. It's hard to gauge without knowing the full breadth of research that went into the article, but it feels that information is being included in the lead which does not uniquely identify the memorable traits of the species. For example, it notes at the end that (P. ornatus) has been successfully bred in captivity. I imagine that lots of lobsters have been successfully bred in captivity. I think what is trying to be said is something along the lines of "P. Ornatus is a major component of Asian commercial fisheries." which is a identifying trait. It also says that it has 11 larval stages. Is that relevant in the lead? I honestly don't know. Ig that is a shared trait of most spiny lobsters, I don't think it's relevant. If that is a unique number of larval stages which grants tropical rock lobster some unique zoological merit, then sure. If that is the case, the page should probably have a section on its various larval forms, seeing as only the economic significance of the seed lobster form is explored. The content seems a bit jumbled at times, as it will digress into loosely related but highly detailed terminology and phenomenon. For example the section on the studies against the efficacy of blue and green lipped mussel feed. I get the impression that, in researching the topic, a source was found that had a lot if useful information, but that information was documented in pursuit of a specific research question. It feels as if the page was obligated to to include the very specific findings of the paper in order to qualify the general information that the paper was utilized for. I think it's fine to ignore some of those specifics and just salvage the general information, even if that information was on the periphery of the source it was found in. I think some passages come off a bit argumentative, as if quoting a thesis rather than a fact, e.g. "Unfortunately, many government officials do not understand the mutual benefits of this practice and have implemented regulations in an attempt to increase already-stable populations of adult lobsters." That sentence seems like a bit of a value judgement.

Otherwise, the page looks good. I didn't notice any problems with sources or anything like that.