User talk:Amhwarren/Cleaner fish

Peer review of Amhwarren's article Cleaner Fish by user AnimalBehaviorStudent Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Amhwarren Cleaner fish Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amhwarren/Cleaner_fish

Lead
Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? '''Yes, the lead was updated and provided necessary and useful information. It was very informative''' Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? '''The additional information contributes to the overall article. Based on the view history, the lead has been edited numerous times and the contributor clearly introduces cleaner fish in farming.''' Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? '''Yes, the lead provides a clear overview of the article and is easy to follow. However, the ways in which cleaner fish affect the environment and economy is addressed in the article, but it is not mentioned in the lead. The lead can briefly introduce the impact of cleaner fish on the environment and economy.''' Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all the information in the lead is relevant to the overall topic. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? '''The lead is clear and detailed. It is easy to understand and reflects most of the information in the article.''' Lead evaluation '''It is detailed enough to understand the importance of the topic, it is not repetitive and all the contributions are relevant to the topic. 7/10'''

Content
Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant to the overall topic. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the information added is up -to-date, but the article references two outdated sources (one from 1998 and the other from 2002). Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content added is relevant to the topic. Content evaluation '''The content is relevant, consistent and well-organized. 9/10'''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes because one cannot guess the perspective of the contributor and the language used was very formal and unbiased. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? '''No, there were not any claims that appeared to be biased towards one side. The article uses formal and careful language''' Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the article provided a clear reflection of different elements of the topic. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? No, the article does not make any claims on behalf a group, the contributor uses neutral language and presents various aspects of the topic.''' Tone and balance evaluation '''Some sections of the article are more detailed, but this is expected as this is only the first draft of the overall article. Each sections adds to the article and all perspectives are included and presented. 7/10'''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all new content is backed up by a reliable source. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources reflect the available literature on the topic. Are the sources current? Most are current sources and published within the last decade, but there are a few outdated sources such as the 1998 and 2002 sources. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work, but one source is missing a date. Sources and references evaluation '''Most the statements are attributed to various sources and most additional information is connected to a reliable source such as a journal articles. However, two sources are missing the date. 8/10'''

Organization
Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clear and easy to follow. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? '''Yes, there are some grammatical errors; for instance the lead includes the word But with a capital b when it is written in the middle of a sentence. The contributor should include commas to break up ideas and to eliminate run on sentences. Avoid errors by rereading work!''' Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is well structured, making it easier to follow and understand. Organization evaluation '''The content is in a sensible order and made sense. 7/10'''

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the images presented in the article contribute to the overall article. Are images well-captioned? Yes, the images are well-captioned and clearly showcase the actions carried out by cleaner fishes. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, these images do in fact adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the images were placed in related sections; for instance in the mimicry section there was a picture of a bluestriped fangblenny, which is a mimic of the cleaner fish. Images and media evaluation '''The images contributed to the overall article and from a reader's perspective all the images used were visually appealing. 9/10''' Guiding questions:

Overall
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the article is more complete, but the contributor should reread the article to avoid minor grammatical errors. What are the strengths of the content added? The article is very detailed and the author clearly addresses the mechanisms of cleaner fish and backs up the new content with reliable sources. How can the content added be improved? '''The article is well-organized and structured, now the contributor must add additional information to each section to complete the article. For instance, facultative cleaner fish is clearly addressed while obligate cleaner fish is only defined and briefly described.''' Overall evaluation The article is easy to follow, clearly explains the behaviour of cleaner fish and presents the information in a neutral manner.

Peer reviewed by aennis15

The lead in your draft of the Cleaner fish article is clear and it discussed all the important topics appropriately. The information added to the introductory sentence describes the article much better than the original sentence.

The content that was added to the article, is relevant to the topic. The new content really helps the readers deepen their knowledge of cleaner fish. There are some sentences throughout that I had to reread because they seemed a little bit long and sometimes confusing. There are also some grammar errors but it is nothing major.

The overall tone throughout the article is neutral. In the subsection of "challenges of using cleaner fish", the third paragraph starts off with " another important consideration", which can come off as less neutral.

The sources that were used throughout the article are all from reliable scientific literature. Your sources are consistent throughout, everything that is stated is backed up with a source. Also, one of the sources in your reference section is missing a date.

The organization of the article is very good. It is concise clear and easy to read. Specific information is easy to find in the article because of how the sections are broken down.

All in all, your contribution to the cleaner fish article is good. Some minor edits are needed but overall great job with contribution. I am looking forward to reading your final article. Aennis15 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aennis15 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer reviewed by acp741

Lead evaluation: The lead of this article was clear and concise. It included a brief introduction to each major section, and was not overly detailed. My biggest piece of advice would be to follow the same sequence in the lead as in the article. For example the sequence in the lead of mentioning what "cheating" is and then explaining the 2 different types of cleaner fish, is different then in sequence in the body of the article, as it goes into the 2 different types, and then later on explaining what cheating is. It may be easier for the reader to follow along if it is all presented in the same order.

Content evaluation: The added content is very relevant and up to date on the topic. The additions made in the new article allow the reader to have a deeper understanding of cleaner fish behaviour. All information included relates to the topic, as well as diving deeper into the science of the behaviour by describing the neurobiological aspects as well.

Tone and balance evaluation: The added content is neutral and does is not biased towards any position.

Sources and References: All content is supported by up to date and relevant sources. The added links have been checked and all work.

Organization evaluation: For the most part the added content is easy to read and flows well. There are some parts in the article that are a bit confusing such as " Cleaner fish display characteristics such as interaction duration and cleaner memories of reoccurring clients are influenced by the neuroendocrine system of the fish, involving hormones Arginine Vasotocin, Isotocin and serotonin." and may need to be re worded to be a bit clearer. There are also a few small grammatical errors with punctuation and "it's, its' " etc. Also note some wrong capitalization in some sentences such as " An Example of obligate cleaners is the sharknose goby (Elacatinus evelynae) in the Caribbean Reef, where it has been observed to perform up to 110 cleanings per day." Just a few minor things to look out for before submitting the final paper!

Images and media evaluation: The added images are a great contribution to the article, as they provide a further visualization to the topic. The images are well captioned as well. The placement of images was very visually appealing as they guided the eye through the content.

Overall evaluation: The article seems to be complete. The content added was relevant and up to date, and was also interesting to read. I enjoyed the depth in which the author dove into the the behaviour as it provided a clearer and more full picture of the behaviour in its' entirety. My biggest suggestion would be to re- read the article and check for awkward sentences and small grammatical errors. Overall, great article additions!

Acp741 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Acp741

Thank you all for your edit suggestions! Amhwarren (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)