User:Mmurdockgcsu/Aquatic invasive species in Canada/Nadyagutierrez Peer Review

General info
I reviewed Mmurdockgcsu's changes to the Aquatic invasive species in Canada.

Link to draft:

Link to current version:

Peer Review
I like that you all added organisms to the list stated in the original article. I would expect that Canada has many aquatic invasive species, so I was surprised that the current article only lists six of them. I also liked that you linked each of your organisms to other Wikipedia pages that has more information on each organism. I think that you all did a great job listing the range and some characteristics that can be beneficial in identification of these organisms. I also liked the pictures that were included and think they strengthened the article. The organization is good and makes sense in regard to the original article. I think your article did a good job looking from multiple perspectives. I liked that you accomplished this by having sources from both the US and Canada government. Most of the paragraphs were not too heavily dependent on one or two sources, which also helps avoiding bias. Everything seemed pretty well sited from what I observed.

The main opportunity for improvement that I see in this article is failure to address the negative impacts of these organisms. You all gave good background but why should the reader be concerned about these organisms being present is these aquatic systems? Perhaps you could talk about economic and environmental impacts of these organisms. You stated that these organisms are a threat but why are they a threat? I think that this is value information that could strengthen your article. Most of your article looked reputable, but I was not familiar with citation [3] and [7], so perhaps look for more reputable sources for those sections. For the most part, you all did a great job staying neutral on the topic and not trying to convince the reader of anything, however there was one part in the Spiny Waterflea section where you stated "drastically impacted zooplankton". While I do not doubt that populations were impacted, it might feel less persuasive if you add a statistic or simply say "reduced zooplankton populations". Similarly you also state that they are "the most imminent threat". This is a direct quote from your source, so if you decided to include it, I would recommend rephrasing it or using quotations. It also feel a bit biased to me. I am certain that there are many threats to the great lakes, and I am not entirely sure how they came to that conclusion. Many of the words used in your last sentence were the same as your source but rearranged. I would try your best to change up the wording so that there are no issues there. I also had a dificult time finding the information that was cited by source [7] in the article but I might have missed that. Overall, the paragraph about Golden Star Tunicates was paraphrased well, however it seemed like most of the points came from source [5]. Having a more even amount of content covered by each of your sources will aid in keeping the article unbiased. I was having a difficult time finding some of the points in the third sentence of the Spiny Water Flea in the cited literature including the invasion of Lake Huron and the number 179 listed, but I might have missed it in the paper.

Overall, your article was informative! My group's article is about eutrophication in estuaries and something we could discuss is how eutrophication impacts invasive species within the estuary ecosystem.

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.)