User:Susennac/Amphioctopus fangsiao/Reaformarinebio Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Susennac; PastelRoselia


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Amphioctopus fangsiao


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Amphioctopus fangsiao (same link as above as of 10/4/21)

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 a good introduction to the article and accurately summarizes what to expect from the article.

Content: The content is definitely relevant to the topic. However the section on Genetic Structure seems to have too much of scientific terminology and does not flow well between sentences; almost as if a new point is being made every sentence. I think the intended audience is the general public who do not have access to research papers and thus I really like your inclusion of hyperlinks.

Under the topic Abnormal Morphologies, the sentence starts with "However" which is a little confusing as one typically does not expect a sentence in a new heading to continue from content under the previous heading. This can be especially confusing for someone who just uses the content link to skip to that particular heading. I think deleting the "however" and treating it like an independent paragraph should do the trick

Tone and Balance: Neutral and balanced. However, in the Abnormalities within Infection Rates section there appears to be a slight bias in the line, "The results were not as expected." This seems to favour the opinion of the experimenter who formed the hypothesis when in reality the Wiki article should portray facts gained from the experiment and not the experiment itself.

Sources and References: The links seem to work. I'm a little unsure about the reliability of newspapers for the Culinary Use section (especially since none of the newspapers are Korean) but I guess peer review articles for culinary uses may not exist. The further reading and external links section is really nice.

Organization: The Growth and Distribution section seems to be only distribution and no growth. The embryonic development would flow better after this section as I think that counts as growth? So maybe moving the Genetic Structure section down to before the Diseases section might work better in terms of organization. Also, the Culinary section can be made the last section in my opinion. To clarify, I personally would prefer the following order: Distribution, Embryonic Development, Diseases.. , Genetic Structure, Culinary Use.

Images and Media: There's a good range of images. The images for the Culinary Uses was an especially nice touch.

Overall great job!! I would love to know more about the structure and feeding habits of the organism if such research exists!

- Rea