User:LanceJAndrew/Mermithidae/Zbelinfante Peer Review

After reading the Association with Iridescent Viruses, I am very impressed with the elevated language presented and the collection of knowledge that the student found on his topic. I really admired how in one of your "overview"/"bring together" sentences, it had all five of your sources cited. I think that shows that you really took the time to gather information and connect it together!

peer review checklist:

Lead: (I think lead is the title) and if it is, yes the Lead was spot on with the information that was presented. I know exactly what is about to be talked about.

Content: the content is relevant to the paragraph for sure which means it is likely equivalently relative to the whole article (I cant see it all). All of the sources seem to be up-to-date, three of them are over 20 years old but I think the information cited from the older species is still reliable.

Tone/Balance: Yes, the content added is neutral, it is all scientific and displays no bias to the mermithids viral infection.

some editing points I noticed


 * 1) in the first sentence, "asssociated" is spelled wrong
 * 2) in the second sentence it might be able to be changed to either "Strelkomermis spiculatus have been found to transmit an iridescent virus in the mosquito species " or too "Viruses"
 * 3) this might just be a me being a visual thinker but you said "found to be associated with", while you did site it, is there anyway to kind of summarize or vaguely communicate where this was found (again this might just be a me thing and could be completely right how you did it!) for example, "based on the study ______, Mermithids have been found.....
 * 4) one thing i did notice was the in the last sentence, when talking about two of the mermithids species, you said "their iridescent virus" and maybe you could name it like their "unknown" virus to help differentiate the two viruses

again, you killed this, you are a genius. I'm sorry I couldn't be much help but I genuinely think you presented the information very very well and only have a few minor grammatic errors and maybe 1 or 2 structure errors. (please take everything I have reviewed with a grain of salt)!!

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)