User:Lillian self/Chiridotidae/RuthSimmons Peer Review

General Overview

 * Whose work are you reviewing: Lillian Self
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Current Article

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead section is a very short description that does not cover all of the new content. It briefly mentions some taxonomy and anatomy/morphology content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead sentence is concise by mentioning basic taxonomic info.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise and could benefit

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the information seems very relevant to the topic and has a wide range of categories about the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content all appears to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article could potentially benefit from more content on their distribution, adaptations, and more background about the discovery of the family?. All of the content that has been added so far seems to be very relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The "Body" section is very detailed while some other sections, such as the "description", "environment", and "development", are much shorter. In some situations, the sections could be shorter, but I would consider adding a bit more information to each of the smaller sections in your article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some of the information may need more citations.
 * Accoring to the wikipedia help page on citations: "each section of text that is either based on, or quoted from, an outside source is marked as such with an inline citation. The inline citation may be a superscript footnote number, or an abbreviated version of the citation called a short citation." I'm pretty sure this means that there should be a citation for every sentence that has information from a source, not just once per paragraph or so.
 * For example in the "Environment Paragraph" the first sentence contains a specific value, which likely came from a source but there is no citation on that sentence. It can be hard to tell what is you own words without more citations and could cause you to be flagged for plagarism.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes and Yes
 * Are the sources current? Most of the sources seem to be current, with a few from the early 2000's
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Overall the information is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes:
 * Description: "Within the family there are 16 recognized genera all with different ranges of body types and functions." Consider adding a comma after family
 * Environment: "Different species have adapted to the harsh conditions of deep-sea life, but because they primarily feed of detris, they do not starve." Consider changing "feed of detris" to "feed off detritus"
 * Body:
 * "However, the sclerites are absent in some genus of Chiridotidae (ex. Kolostoneura and Paradota)." Consider changing "genus" to "genera"
 * "Also, it should be noted that the intestine is sometimes suspended by only mediodorsal mesentery." Should this be: "suspended by only mediodorsal mesenteries" or should this be: " by only the mesentery mediodorsal"? Saying just "by only" doesn't seem quite right grammatically.
 * "Ossicles have rods, hooks, and miliary granules ." There is an extra space before the period.
 * "In these genera the ossicles are curved to form a loop, or eye." Consider adding a comma after "genera".
 * "Myriotrochid genus have teeth located in the inner margin and they can be either large and pronounced or completely absent." Consider changing "have" to has, since "the Myriotrochid genus" is a singular subject?
 * "Other body parts used for movement include: the body wall, tentacles, papillae, and dermal ossicles[3]." Consider changing the colon to a semi-colon.
 * "Apodids in general usually use peristaltic movements to navigate around the seafloor ." There is an extra space before the period.
 * "In the family Chiridotidae the tentacles around the mouth are forked[6]." Consider adding a comma after "Chiridotidae".
 * "The calcareous ring is made up of many small plates bound together by connective tissues[1] . " There is an extra space before the period.
 * "In Chiridotidae the ring is comprised of dense labyrinthic stereom, that is thickest in the center of the plate." Consider rewording to "...stereom, which is the thickest..."
 * "The genus Gymnopipina, has short anterior projections in the calcareous ring and a madreporite sitting at the end of the long stone canal that has allowed for scientists to classify it in the family Chiridotidae" Consider removing comma after "The genus Gymnopipina". Consider removing the "for" from "allowed scientists to classify".
 * "They also take up waste materials form the coelom and dispose of them by deposition or release through the body wall." Consider changing "form" to "from".
 * "Ciliary urns vary in shape, size, and arrangement among species. Because ciliary urns run up the entire length of adult sea cucumbers, it is known that the urns are not associated with digestion, but rather they serve and excretory role in the immune system." Consider changing "and" to "an".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, they did a great job of breaking their article up into different sections and sub-sections. A few additional sections could be added to make a more comprehensive article.

Images and Media

 * Consider adding some images or media to break up the text on the page. Make sure they follow Wikipedia's strict copyright rules and are relevant to the topic. May consider adding a cladogram or some taxonomic structure that would be more visually appealing for the taxonomy section.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the quality of the article has been greatly improved and it is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is good detail in the article and the sources seem to provide relevant research related to the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more sections, make short sections longer, check grammar, add images and graphics