User talk:Goobglorp/Planktivore

Mr. Jotatohead's Draft Peer Review
Strengths: Informative and a lot of supporting material and references. Structured very well, great image placement and organization.

Weaknesses: The two paragraphs are much too similar to be two separate paragraphs. It would benefit the content to put them together, since the second paragraph is essentially an example of the first.

The second sentence reads awkwardly, "Varying species and placements of these animals feed on all types of plankton such as bacteria, algae, and other phytoplanktons." I kind of know what you are trying to say I think, but it is just doesn't read that way.

The citation #4 for that statement doesn't do it justice. It is not bad, but as a reader, going to that page and going back to the text, they don't quite match. The paper that is cited discusses so much more on Dreissena than what the citation was used for, noting that their are filter feeders. Again, it's not "wrong," but it reads as a filler citation, just thrown in there.

Grammar* However, not all of the plankton that (is)→[are] filtered by these mussels (is)→[are] properly digested prior to excretion and in turn they disperse large amounts of inorganic nutrients into their ecosystem.

Citation #5 is not a very good reference to use in this context, at least from the readers perspective. After following the source, the text does not match the source material from the wiki article. After comparing the two, it almost feels like, "why did you use it?" It might have more to do with the fact that all that was available to the reader was an abstract and summary, but the sentence it was used in citation did not match.

Citation #7 would be better off being placed after "Ponto-Caspian region,"

After reading the sources from citation #6 & #7, the information is weak and could definitely be strengthened by adding more information from these sources.

Overall, the article seems to be more about mussels, especially Dreissena, than anything else. This is an issues because the title is "Effects of Planktivory on the Environment" and there is very little actual content that reflects the title. There are a few statements, but with the amount of citation/references, this section could be a lot stronger.

Mr. Jotatohead (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Mr. Jotatohead

Planktivore review
This is Alli Cramer - currently a postdoc at UC Santa Cruz and a marine ecologist. I am reviewing this addition to the planktivore page for the WP:L&O.

The addition is two paragraphs focused on the "Effects of Planktivory on the Environment". Based on the length, I think this intended to be a new section for the larger Planktivore page. First, I will go through the various points suggested in the reviewer guide document, then I have some suggestions for how to better integrate it into the larger Planktivore page.

Specific Points

The content is clearly written and is concise and the tone is correct for a wikipedia article. The sentence structure is solid, though the section would benefit from some re-structuring to bring the reader into the general topic (see suggestions below). The first sentence needs work - as it currently is structured "Planktivores ... reside on hard substrates..." The interjection of "such as mussels" needs to either include the burying bit, or (my suggestion) the burying bit should be deleted all together. The sentence could then read "Planktovires, such as mussels, have the ability to greatly alter the nutrient cycles of their ecosystems."
 * All content is clearly written, formal in tone, and written from a neutral point of view?

The discipline-specific terms are linked to their specific pages (such as "nutrient cycles") however not all terms are set up in a way accessible to the reader - for example, the "Increasing populations of invasive dreissenid mussels, which are originally from the Ponto-Caspian region,..." does not link to where the Ponto-Caspian region is, so could benefit from restructuring or linking to the Pontic-Caspian steppe page.

No viewpoints are mentioned, but findings are and they are cited.
 * Any viewpoints are attributed to the people who held them.

In general the use of citation is adequate for specific examples, however the citations at the beginning and end of the section could be improved. For example, citations 1 and 2 refer to specific aspects of invasive mussels, while the sentence discusses the ability of planktivores in general to alter nutrient cycles. I suggest the first paragraph use citations more aligned with general descriptions of planktoreves, then uses specific citations when the sections discusses large scale consequences, such as when planktovores are invasive species.
 * Reliable, specific sources are cited for each factual claim and conclusion 

The last citation, number 13, refers to implications for nutrient budgets given mussel presence. However, the sentence states that "due to these findings involving their effect on nutrient cycles, freshwater mussels may be valuable in better understanding the chemistry of freshwater systems." This sentence needs flipped to use the citation correctly. For example: Because planktivores, such as mussels, impact nutrient cycles they are an important part of the chemistry of aquatic systems.(cite 13)"

Citation 10 does not seem correct. It is a larger review of the impact of tube-dwelling invertebrates on lakes (chironomids). This citation would be good if the section discussed other types of filter feeders, however it is not correct as a citation for the impact of mussels.

The figure added shows a quagga mussel, which is referred to in the second paragraph. This is relevant, though doesn't connect directly to the larger "effect of planktivory on the environment" focus of the paragraph. I suggest a picture of a food web diagram showing how the mussels interact with native planktivores, which would more clearly illustrate how these invasive planktivores impact other organisms and the environment. For example, the Cary institute had excellent graphics on the Zebra mussels before and after invasion. Something like these graphics would be good (or those graphics if their copyright allows).
 * Appropriate figures, images, graphs, and animations are used to communicate information

Larger suggestions

I suggest that this section be folded into the existing "planktivore ecology" section. This way the author can build from that section's brief discussion of food webs and have a paragraph focused on the impact on the wider food web (for example, the sentence about mussels eating "all types of plankton", and the sentence citing reference 11) and a paragraph on the impact on nutrient cycles. As it is, the two impacts are being combined, so the overall structure of the section is confusing.

In addition, there should be a more general discussion of how food webs and nutrient cycles are impacted by planktovores before the discussion of invasive specifically. Right now, a reader might get the impression that all planktivore presence has dramatic impacts such as the reduction of native species. We need a little more context on their role within food webs and the nutrient cycle before we see the dramatic examples provided by invasives (which are good examples - they just need context).

Allicramer (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)