User:LydBo/Gonatus onyx/JulesA27 Peer Review

General info
LydBo, Ahoog11, Skiah12
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:LydBo/Gonatus onyx
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Gonatus onyx

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * While the group did not make any edits to the lead, I think it sufficiently gives a general overview of the squid
 * Maybe the group can add some more clarification to some of the unfamiliar terms used in the lead, such as the mantle.
 * Also, there are no sources used in the lead, so that should be added as well.

Content


 * The group added a variety of information to the article. Each topic, habitat, reproduction and behavior, had specific details and were cited appropriately.
 * I think the wording of the content was easy to understand and each section had a good flow.
 * Since the sections are so large maybe it would be better to break them down more?

Tone and Balance


 * The authors maintained a neutral tone throughout the article
 * The information provided was well balanced as I felt the article was a general overview of the species, rather than just one area of the species.

Sources and References


 * While the added information was well cited, I think the information already present on the page can be improved, especially in the lead section.
 * Most of the citations added are from more than 5 years ago, so maybe try finding some more recent sources. This can possibly be found looking at paper that discuss other species as well rather than papers primarily about the organism.

Organization


 * I think one of the major things that can be improved on the wikipedia page is the organization of it.
 * Specifically the description section should be more specified, or maybe just incorporated more into the lead section
 * because the group stated they wanted to focus on adaptions, maybe it would beneficial to pull some of the information mentioned in the paragraphs into its own separate adaptation section.

Images and Media


 * The groups did not add any pictures or videos in, so I think thats something they can add when going over edits.

Overall Impressions


 * The edits were very well done and detailed. I especially appreciated how edits were easy to understand, and I think non-science readers will be able to comprehend most information.
 * Because the edits are so dense, it may be helpful to break down sections into smaller paragraphs or create more subsections.
 * other parts of the paper should be edited, especially the lead an description section. The lead section should include more citations, and the descriptions section should be organized better or the information should just be distributed throughout the page.