User:Vertebrates.for.Invertebrates/Chromodoris annae/Maddiet37 Peer Review

General info
Vertebrates.for.Invertebrates
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Vertebrates.for.Invertebrates/Chromodoris annae
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Chromodoris annae
 * Chromodoris annae

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead has not been updated by the author but it already concisely describes the topic of the article without going into too much detail.

Content: The content that was added is relevant to the topic and succeeds in making the original article more detailed. Prior to the author's draft, the original article lacked any information about reproduction of this particular species as well as any details into the ecology/behavior -- other than the nudibranch's diet. The description of the species is already adequately described, needing no alterations. A sentence was added to the distribution regarding activity during the day, but perhaps (if known by researchers) a sentence could be added going into more detail about the habitat of the nudibranch or its location during the night. Another piece of information could potentially be regarding anything about the life cycle of this species (besides reproduction) or if there are any specific documented predators, but it is understandable that the information may not yet be available. If not, the information added by the author will be sufficient until further knowledge is gained about Chromodoris annae.

Tone & Balance: The tone of the content is neutral with no discernible bias.

Sources & References: All new content is backed up by sources that are cited correctly. The sources are generally all peer reviewed and up to date, with the oldest being from 1998 and the most recent in 2017. Sources #1 and #4 might not be considered peer reviewed sources, as they both are from a sea slug forum page. The additional content added by the author utilizes at least 3 new sources as well as 3 sources already cited in the article (but adds new information). The links to these articles work but source #5 lacks a link to the article.

Organization: The content is well written and laid out in a way that is generally easy to read. The content added is broken into 3 sections (Distribution, Behavior/Ecology, and Reproduction), adding one new section to the previously existing article. It is possible that the Behavior and Ecology section could be split into their own categories, as there seems to be enough information to make them separate. The Reproduction section is a bit choppy to read and perhaps could use a bit or rearranging. In the last sentence of the Reproduction portion, I'm unsure if the "3-4 whorls" part is referring to the eggs themselves or if it is simply referring to the arrangement of the egg masses spoken about in the aforementioned sentence. In addition, the wording of the last sentence seems a bit off. If the eggs are translucent and a cream color, then the phrasing should be altered to ensure that it is clearly known to the reader (as currently I don't 100% know if the eggs are simply translucent, a cream color, or both).

In addition, the article could benefit from inserting links to various existing Wikipedia articles for the readers benefit. For example, adding a link to the word aposematic may allow the reader to quickly understand the meaning of the concept without having to leave the article. Finally, the article does appear to have a spelling error under the Behavior & Ecology section, with the word non-aggression being misspelled in the second paragraph, second sentence.

Images: Author did not add images, as there are already numerous images of the nudibranch from various locations in the article that are appropriately captioned.