User:Zxmaria/The Little Mermaid (1989 film)/Makayla Stanley Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Isabella Vitello and Maria )


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivitello/sandbox


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The Little Mermaid (1989 film)

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.)

The lead introductory sentence of their draft addresses the topic of the paragraph but it can be more concise and explanatory. The author did not provide a title for where this information and where it will be placed in the original article. The instances of anthropomorphism seen throughout the characters interactions were not explained, but only mentioned (flounder, Sebastian, scuttle etc). Anthropomorphism was defined effectively with a credible source. It was still underrepresented in the first paragraph with little detail. Something that can be added is how a child is impacted by these interactions whether positively or negatively. If their understanding and imagination is affected, the ability to gain factual information about these animals hindered. In other not to represent the information in a bias or opinionated way a credible source should be used.

The representation of information for r and K strategist was exceptional and relevant to the topic. Although, the reference for this information does not give a clear description of these terms. The use of other terms fecundity, semelparity and iteroparity are present in the source and may help explain their ideas more clearly. The examples for the r strategist was not explained ( fish- what fish exactly). The information on the interspecies relationships of the characters/animals were accurately represented with a credible source. The anthropomorphic roots of these relationships were addresses and combined the two topics together allowing the paragraph to flow. The reference for this information was credible. The mutualistic relationship between flounder and Ariel is beneficial to both organisms but the author did not explain how they benefited. A predator-prey relationship was not defined with a credible source but was relevant. Some of the sentences on predation can be backed up by information from the source as so to not sound bias or convincing in any way.

A brief explanation of trophic levels can be added. The trophic levels that shown in the movie was represented and each animal was listed at a specific level. The authors also presented the food web within that ecosystem in their explanation. All this information was concise and relevant to the topic. The trophic level for mermaids were not represented and their place in the food web was not shown. The source for this information also speaks about the energy flow with in the trophic levels, this can be represented for each prominent character.

The content within this draft directly reflects what the sources are saying. The sources are up to date, thorough in explaining the authors ideas and current so information is assessed to be accurate. All the links present in the reference work. The overall piece was somewhat organized with some connecting statements missing. There are no spelling or grammatical errors. The wikipedia article will be more complete in capturing the biological and ecological aspect of the characters and the movie as a whole.