User talk:GreenTea283/Cynoglossus

Outline Feedback
This is a good start! A more detailed outline would allow me to provide more thorough feedback. For instance, I would list the general characteristics you will talk about in the lead, and list some of the issues sex role reversal has for aquaculture. From what I can tell from the current outline, the ideas seem to flow well from one section to the next, but more details throughout are needed to know for sure. I am happy to give more feedback and adjust the grade if you wish to update the outline!

Do all species show both genetic and environmental sex determination/sex role reversal, or just some species? Or do some species show genetic determination, and others environmental? Seems like a really cool system that I am excited to learn more about! Elioeilish (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review
I enjoyed reading your article. It flowed well overall and was not too difficult to follow.

In regard to global aspects, I think you did well setting up this first draft. I liked how you broke down the section on sex determination into subsections to clearly differentiate what you were talking about. I also think your explanation of the female heterogametic sex determination system was particularly important as some readers may not know what this system is without further explanation. As for improvements, I think it may be worth considering breaking the "sex and sex reversal" subsection into a sex determination lead (shorter) and a subsection on sex reversal (longer). This could provide clarity and also introduce your most important section better. In addition, it may be helpful to include a section between the overview and the sex determination section on habitat and/or appearance for a bit of background on the species before getting into the reproductive information.

In regard to the local aspects, I also think you did a good job overall. You used all 9 of your sources at least once as citations throughout the paper, indicating you did a good job determining good quality sources to use. In addition, you provided a good amount of specific details that aided in the understanding of the article without bogging it down with numbers and statistics, including temperatures and SNPs specific to sex and sex reversal. For improvements, I believe the citations should come after the period of each sentence rather than before as you currently have them set up. I also think the second sentence in the sex and sex reversal section is a bit wordy and hard to read through. Maybe considering restructuring the sentence, or replace "two to four" with "2-4." Lastly, you may want to consider replacing the term "well-liked," used in the 3rd sentence of the lead, with a different descriptive word, as well-liked does not flow well there in my opinion.

I think you have a great first draft and are on a good path to creating a very nice final product.

Kmbio (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that overall, this is a well written first draft of your article. In terms of global features of your article, I think that you did a good job organizing the content of your paragraphs. More specifically, in the “sex and sex reversal” section, the order in which the material is organized is essential for understanding this paragraph, as it begins with characteristics of each sex, including pseudomales, and then transitions into factors that influence sex reversal. This was a good way to organize this information. Second, I think that the explanation of sex-specific molecular markers is essential for understanding the genotypic sex determination mentioned in the “sex and sex reversal” section. These paragraphs work well together to describe sex determination in Cynoglossus. Regarding improvements of global features, I think that the last sentence of the “sex and sex reversal” section should be moved elsewhere in the paragraph to allow for a better transition into the next section, which discusses genotypic sex determination. In other words, transitioning from temperature-dependent sex determination directly into genotypic sex determination would allow for better flow of ideas between paragraphs. In other words, this last sentence of the section seems that it would be more effective if it were placed earlier in this paragraph. I think that if you provided another sentence explaining the problems associated with a skewed sex ratio, then this would relate this information back to the introductory section (which mentions uneven sex ratio), resolving any uncertainty the reader may have about this concept.

In terms of local features of your article, I think that overall, your article is easy to understand and reads well. I think that you did a good job including specific SNPs, as the inclusion of these are not obtrusive to the sentence structure. All nine of your sources appear to be used throughout the article and are correctly placed with their corresponding sentence. I did not notice any spelling or grammar mistakes. Regarding improvements, I think that if you added hypertext/ hyperlinks in your final article for a few terms, then this would further enhance the readability of the article. For instance, this would especially help for the terms gynogenesis and aquaculture. Another minor improvement would be, that the citation should be placed after the period, instead of before the period for each sentence. Again, I think this is a well written first draft. Nicely done!

SEBsmile8 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review
Local Changes: Both reviewers recommended that I move my citations after the period instead of before. I made this change and the paper looks a lot better as a result! They also pointed out that the second sentence in my sex and sex reversal section was a little clunky, so I reworded it in a way that I hope flows a bit better. Finally, they suggested I change the word "well-liked" in the first paragraph. I replaced "well-liked" with "popular." I also added hyperlinks to certain terms in the paper as suggested.

Global Changes: It was recommended that I add more about the habitat/morphology of C. semilaevis. This is something I would love to do, but the literature surrounding this species is very vague about its habitat and general characteristics. It was also suggested that the last sentence of the “sex and sex reversal” section be moved, which I did move closer to the beginning of the section. Overall, these were great recommendations, and I really appreciate the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenTea283 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Global commments: I think this article is well-written, especially given the difficulties you mention in finding more general scientific literature about these fish. One suggestion I would make is to explain a new term as soon as you mention it (such as with pseudomales--you could move the sentence "These pseudomales have female ZW chromosomes, but become physiologically male" right after the one about how pseudomales skew the sex ratio).

Local comments: A short explanation of upregulation / downregulation (and/or linking to the Wikipedia article on the subject) would be helpful for readers who don't know much about genetics. EileenPlants (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Global comments: I think your article is really well written, overall! Just a few notes on the structure or wording in some areas.

First, in "Sex & Sex Reversal", this sentence: These pseudomales have female ZW chromosomes, but become physiologically male. should come right after sentence 4 when pseudomales are first mentioned, as this would help give some clarity. Along this vein, the following sentence: ZZ males do not change their sex, but some ZW females have the potential to become pseudomales. Is a little awkward where it is, since you have already been talking about the fact that some females become pseudomales in the paragraph. I would either combine it with the sentence I mentioned moving, or maybe cut it from the section to improve flow.

Local Comments: Your article is clearly well-researched, so I do not have much to suggest for content. One suggestion would be in the "Gene Expression in the Gonads" section, where the following phrasing may be confusing, "...which held true under both ambient and high-temperature conditions.[9] When exposed to higher temperatures, males, females, and pseudomales had 534 DEGs in common." You do not mention or reference a specific experiment earlier in this sentence or paragraph, so listing an event as "holding true under _____ conditions" seems odd. I would either explain the experiments done in which these traits were determined, or maybe rephrase in a way that can give those statements more context.

All in all, you have a really nice article ! Mel.mcguire (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)