User:Kliberstein/Periphylla periphylla/Ijones459 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kliberstein


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kliberstein


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Helmet jellyfish

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Lead section: Make sure to expand the lead section to include your information. Maybe a one sentence summary of the major sections?
 * Content: I think you did a really good job of utilizing recent research for your article! Maybe a bit more information could be added about their ecology (like predators, what sorts of anthropogenic threats they might face, etc.) There's a lot more information about the development of the organism than anything else so maybe try to balance things a little more by beefing up the other sections.
 * Tone and Balance: Your information seems to present everything in a neutral, even way which is good!
 * Sources and references: Your sources all seem like they come from really relevant, reputable publications. Some of the sources you have listed don't seem to be cited, but you may not have gotten a chance to add their info in yet. If you use the cite button, it'll automatically create a citation and a link at the bottom of the page and number your sources which is super useful and saves you a lot of work! I noticed that was something not utilized in the original article either so make sure for your final draft that you use it.
 * Organization: It might make sense to have the description as the first section after the lead, then distribution, life style, and then reproduction/development. Your grammar is good and it's easy to read! In the reproduction section you may want to define some of the anatomical terms as the average reader might not know what things like rhopalia, lappets, histones, etc are. This might be a good place to add a graphic too! A chart of general jellyfish lifecycle might be easier than explaining what planula, ephyra, medusa, etc stages are.
 * Overall: You've definitely improved the quality and completion of the original article! There's a lot of really good detailed information, and it's very current which is a major plus! I think the main improvements to make are to make sure to define/explain the more scientific terms and just add more information to round out what you currently have.