User talk:EasyBlakeOven/sandbox

I think you've done an amazing job synthesizing a ton of information. However, throughout the article there are some technical terms that could be explained in more plain language. In some cases, you could even remove some of the detailed results and just focus on the conclusions of the studies. Also, do some of the different jellyfish classes have common names? It might make the article easier to follow by replacing, for instance, "cubomedusae" with just "box jellyfish" throughout. Many of the paragraphs could also be improved by developing a strong topic sentence that highlights the main point of the passage or the main conclusion of the study. I have a few super nitpicky suggestions for improving how you describe patterns of evolution throughout the article. Keep in mind, though, that the patterns you've highlight here are really interesting and insightful, and I think you've done a great job explaining the evolutionary history of vision for these animals. First, I would suggest not using terms like "highly evolved" or "more evolved", since they imply a hierarchy of organisms, which isn't really how the natural world is structured. Instead, you could say "highly derived" to indicate lineages or species that are very different from their close relatives and ancestors. Also, I think the phrasing of a trait evolving because it was "necessary" for a certain function could be improved. I think this phrasing suggests that natural selection will always give an organism/lineage what it needs to have the most fitness, and this isn't really true--it just acts on random variation. Instead, you could say something like, "natural selection likely favored organisms with high-resolution vision because it allowed them to have increased photoreceptive and behavioral performance in response to changes in habitats and task complexity". Overall though, I think this is a great start to your article and it shouldn't be too difficult to make the suggested improvements. noah Elioeilish (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blake, so much great information in your article. You have done a thorough job of covering the literature. In general, the flow, as I had mentioned in regards to the outline, is good. I am sure once you start condensing, there may be some suggestions I have for rearrangement, but for this next draft, your main focus should be on simplifying and condensing information. I have included below some suggestions for specific sections that you should apply more generally across your article.

In the first section, I like how you present evidence that behavior is guided by light and then explain the general evolutionary pattern. I think you could greatly reduce the first paragraph by focusing more on the results of what people found – pretend you are explaining to a class of 5th graders what you know about light-guided behavior, and instead of including explanations of the experiments, just report on what they do. Use this same approach throughout your article to condense and simplify the material.

Sentences like this one (It is argued that because box jellyfish visual systems are made up of 24 eyes and four distinct morphological types that they possess multiple photosystems), I suggest editing in the following manner: box jellyfish have multiple photosystems comprising of different sets of eyes. And then explain briefly what it means to have more than one photosystem – they are eached used for a different task? If so, you may even say something along the lines of “subsets of the 24 eyes are dedicated to different visual tasks” as an even more simplified way of explaining.

I would provide definitions for more complex terminology throughout (e.g. exumbrella).

In the second section, I think a diagram would be quite helpful, if you can find one that you can post to Wikipedia.

Overall, you are off to a great start Evol&#38;Glass (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Blake, I think you did a great job in removing the focus of the article from individual experiments to a more cohesive focus. I also liked how you went in depth on specific examples to compare and contrast in the section on environmental stimuli and its relevance. In the second paragraph of the last section of the article, there are fragments in the first half of the paragraph that still allude to an experiment: “Three species… were used to”, “the conclusion of these findings”. I would suggest rewriting those sentences to avoid the references. I also found in the second section, fourth paragraph, that molecular mass was discussed. I would recommend adding a little more to explain why those specific masses are important. I still think that adding a diagram to your article on the structure of jellyfish eyes would be beneficial, since the description of the structure is still difficult to understand for those without previous knowledge of what it is like. I also believe that repeated citations of the same article in a paragraph where it is the only article cited is redundant.KestrelFlight (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft 2 review

Cool article! Where exactly in the jellyfish article do you want to place it? I might change the wording of the second sentence to say "lack a true brain". Overall, I think the article could still use some dumbing down. For example, I might consider removing or simplifying terms like "ambient light", "extraoccular", "basal visual systems" etc (terms from the first paragraph alone). I would try to think about what the main point of each sentence/ section is in your draft and focus on how to convey it without all the little details. In the first sentence of the second paragraph I would change "evolution of eyes" to "evolution of complex eyes". Good work explaining the steps in the evolution of vision. I think the article might benefit from switching the order of the first two paragraphs so it broadly discusses sight then discusses sight in the context of jellyfish. The second section would benefit from diagrams showing the structure of the 4 different eye types. Im also a little confused about how what the point of the second paragraph of the second section is. Parts of it seem redundant with the previous paragraph (discussion of 24 eyes and their types) but parts seem new... Overall good subject with lots of good content, there is just a lot going on. Cat&#38;Donkey (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Emelyn