User:Olivesaregreen/Nanomia bijuga/Adoung Peer Review

General info
Group 1 Siphonophore: Nanomia bijuga
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)

The additions to this article are comprehensive and well done.

Lead


 * The edited lead provides a more fluid, grammatically corrected, and generally comprehensive short summary of and introduction to the article. An additional sentence could summarize information from the conservation status section.
 * The use of N. bijuga versus Nanomia bijuga, can be standardized after the first time Nanomia bijuga is used.
 * In the second to last sentence, the word siphonophore is misspelled as "siphonores".

Content


 * The content provided should be reviewed for grammatical mistakes and ordering but overall is relevant and well referenced.
 * Behavior: The last line of the first body paragraph is incomplete. Tentacles is also spelled wrong throughout the section. Some sentences in this section are combining multiple ideas that may be split up into separate sentences to be more clear.
 * Diet: The 3 unique suborders of siphonophores may be internally linked to their respective Wikipedia page.
 * Taxonomy: Nanomia, Nanomia cara, and Nanomia gracilis can be internally linked to its respective wikipedia page (if they exist).
 * Conservation Status: It may be considered that the last paragraph is repetitive and can be incorporated by expanding on or keeping the first two paragraphs.

Sources and References


 * Citations are overall well done. References should be looked over to standardize and correct formatting. The last two referenced sources may be reconsidered and replaced with academic sources instead.

Organization

''
 * The article is generally good, although it may be considered to move the taxonomic section closer to the beginning of the content. Additional changes may be considered as sections continue to develop.''