User:Olivesaregreen/Nanomia bijuga/AudreyS99 Peer Review

General info
Olivesaregreen, Kao24, Andrew,gans, Malloryfitzhenry, BeanoMill092, Czerwinz
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olivesaregreen/Nanomia_bijuga?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Nanomia bijuga

Lead

 * Lead is a short but strong summary of the contents of the article. It flows well and is well organized.

Content

 * Addition of internal links to other wikipedia pages might be useful to help define new vocab words throughout the article. Or if the words do not have wikipedia pages, just providing a bit more of a definition would help improve fluency
 * Like the words pneumatophore, ectoderm/endoderm, deep scattering layer
 * Anatomy and morphology: The first sentence has a small grammatical mistake "are made up of" should be "is made up of," but this section is well organized and easy to follow. Do we know what type of gas is in the gas filled chamber?  I'm so curious.
 * Distribution and habitat: What does it mean for a species to be a seasonal species? Just that its abundance peaks at specific times of year?  This section is also organized well and the writing style is very clear
 * Behavior: The second to last sentence of this section is missing the last half of the sentence. This section is structured well in a prey and a predator paragraph that makes for easy comprehension on a broad level.  One suggestion would be to read through this section and remove redundant words, at times it felt a little wordy and hard to follow phrase to phrase.
 * Diet: The suborders of siphonophore could be linked to their respective wikipedia pages, maybe rearrange the first and second sentence so that a reader knows N. bijuga belongs to the Physonectae suborder before hearing about the Physonectae diet, the information provided here was really interesting!
 * Taxonomy: The species name should be in italics. I'm not sure the last sentence of the third paragraph needs to be included as it seems more a general note on genetic analysis than specifically about this species, the last sentence of the fourth paragraph seems a little redundant to the section as well and I'd find a way to either cut it out or shorten it significantly.  I like the inclusion of information on closely related species and how they overlap, that was really interesting to add.
 * Conservation status: The species name should be in italics here as well. Since this is a wikipedia article I'm not sure the conclusion paragraph is necessary.  The information provided there has already been said elsewhere, so I don't think it needs to be repeated.  The writing style here is really nice and easy to read.

Tone

 * The tone is good and feels scientific and objective throughout

Sources and References

 * Generally, sources are well cited and the references used are mainly scientific and peer reviewed sources or sites through MBARI that are run by experts.
 * There is a little redundancy in sources, like 7 and 8, in the references section
 * Additionally, the bottom section of the references looks like the sources are cited incompletely, with just the links to the websites and not additional information on the journal articles
 * Taxonomy: Even if the reference is the same throughout the paragraph, including additional citations closer to where content is mentioned (like the ends of multiple sentences instead of just the end of the paragraph) might make it easier for viewers to know which source is being used for information provided
 * Conservation status: Same as above, even if the reference is the same for the whole paragraph, I think it would be helpful to create additional citations throughout in order to show that this information is backed by experts. Overall, this section could use additional citations including the second sentence of the second paragraph and throughout the first paragraph like the first and third sentences.

Organization

 * I think the sentence on what nectophores are in the behavior section might make more sense in the anatomy and morphology section when nectophores are first introduced, so a reader knows what they are right away
 * There appears to be a decent amount of overlap between the second taxonomy paragraph and the morphology section. Is there a way to reorganize so that maybe these details go into the morphology section?
 * It might make sense to move the taxonomy section to be the first after the lead because it provides a really solid overview of what siphonophores are and some of the ecological roles they play.

Overall

 * Overall, I think your edits to the page are really helpful and prove that you did a lot of work researching this species!
 * The article is engaging and for the most part well structured throughout, good job!