User:Olivesaregreen/Nanomia bijuga/Jeremiahbravo Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing the work of Olivesaregreen, Kao24, Andrew.gans, Malloryfitzhenry, BeanoMill092, and Czerwinz
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

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

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.)\

Lead

 * The lead contains an introductory sentence that does clearly and concisely describe the articles topic, however I feel as if the first two sentences can be combined (specifically when first described+first sentence) as I have observed is very common to do with similar pages examining a particular species.
 * The lead does provide a brief description of some of the articles major sections such as distribution and morphology, however there is information missing on the behavior aspect, and diet portion which I feel is vital in the lead of the article, so I would definitely try to add these to the lead.
 * In terms of references used for this portion of the article, it appears that most are actually outdated and so I would recommend finding more up to date sources that may present more recent information on the certain aspects of this species.
 * The lead section in my opinion is also too short, although the topics discussed should be done so very briefly, upon my first read it feels like it is still missing and can definitely benefit from adding more details.
 * I feel that the diet portion of the lead is in need of some help, specifically there is a lack of mention of copepods in the lead even though in the diet section of the article it states that they consume "a larger volume of copepods than fish, ranging anywhere from 14% to 91% of their total diet", which is a detail that if any should be what was mentioned in the lead rather than krill. You can mention the variety of organisms they eat by simply listing it in the lead and then allow for the expansion in the diet section.

Content

 * I find the content provided to be very relevant to the topic. There is a concern over some of the information provided within certain sections of the content however as there are sources such as retrieved from which compared to other sources, is very outdated as the journal was published in 1980s it appears. Given the time gap it is likely that new data has been found that may be different than originally reported.
 * I would recommend adding information on the tentacles of the siphonophore species in the anatomy and morphology section of the article as this is part of its morphology, so it is possible that it can be mentioned and typical uses of it can be as well such as to collect prey, then in the behavior section you can elaborate as to how exactly the process of collecting prey through use of the tentacles is done.
 * There is clear room for added information in a possible taxonomy section of the article, for example it is possible that the information that can be added is the order of the species, related species, etc There can also be the addition on the discovery of the species regarding first sightings and the eventual first publication solidifying its place in the phylogenetic tree as seen with some other high quality Wikipedia pages on marine species.
 * There are various grammatical errors such as "siphosome" instead of "siphonosome" and "tenctacles" instead of "tentacles" so I would strongly advise going through and checking the spelling.
 * Overall there is a consistent neutral tone present throughout this draft in its attempt to represent every viewpoint.

Sources and References

 * The sources are generally well chosen and are derived from trusted sites and publishers. The only critique is the age of some of the chosen sources as the several sources are from as early as 1930s, which can be worrying when considering the possibility that the data may be out of date as well.

Organization

 * I like how the sequence of the sections in terms of organization I see a logical progression
 * There can be shortening of some sentences to make reading it easier such as mentioning DVM outright instead of just describing it
 * I think there has to be addition of the DVM in the behavior portion of this page because this is part of it and is very crucial to them as a species.