User:Strike2426/Self-insemination/JusttheletterE Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Strike2426


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Strike2426/Self-insemination?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Strike2426's article is not a continuation of a pre-existing article, it is their own article they are creating.

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 is is concise and informational, although I think it would be beneficial to add a link for "flat worm". Even though you have a link for the particular flat worm species you are talking about, it could still be helpful for your readers if you added a link for "flat worm". Other than that your lead is really good!

Content
Despite this article being relatively short (especially since it seems to be difficult to find articles about this topic), it contains a lot of great information which is relevant to the article's topic. I would add some links for "posteriorly" and "anteriorly", as us biology and psych students known what these terms mean but other reader's might not. Some other terms you might want to add links for are: stylet, epidermis, ovaries, genetic variety, conditional reproductive strategy. I would also add some headings to break up the information so it is a bit more organized, as the article would be a bit easier to read with some relevant headings added in (it isn't too difficult to read I just think some headings could help organize it a little). I'm not sure if the bit about the sea slug Alderia willowi is fully relevant to your article, as your topic is self- insemination and you did not elaborate on if  Alderia willowi undergoes self- insemination or not. The sea slug example is definitely really interesting, and I can see how it would kind of fit within your article, but at the same time it feels a little disjointed. Maybe write more about how specifically flat worms can damage themselves via self-insemination. I think it would be great if you could add more about the flatworm study with triplet groups and isolated individuals. I also think you could add in more information from the article in your first reference.

Tone and Balance
your tone is professional, and your article does not seem to be bias, it is neutral.

Sources and References
You should add a reference to these sentences "The onset of reproduction is significantly delayed in isolated individuals in comparison to those who were placed in triplet groups. There is also a reduction in the number of hatchlings produced through self-insemination and a decrease in the survival of these offspring, which suggests that this method of reproduction is costly to the parent", the information makes sense and is well written it just needs to be backed up with a reference. Your sources are great! Especially since this topic is difficult to find articles and papers on.

Organization
As I mentioned in the content paragraph, the article body could be broken up with some headings, to make it more organized and coherent.

Images and Media
The pictures and captions you added were informational, and correctly formatted. The picture of the fat worm at the top of the page should be moved somewhere further down, as I missed it the first time I read the article.

For New Articles
The article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, it's list of sources seems to have included all notable article's om the subject, the article doesn't really have enough section headers, it has an info box, and it link's to other articles.

Overall Impressions
Overall, this article has a good amount of detailed information about self-insemination, there are some things that need to be fixed and some things that need to be added as stated in the content paragraph and Lead paragraph, but it's definitely a good rough draft!