User talk:Ktjylee/Ecosystem engineer

General: What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I think that the information you have is great and the writing sounds professional and is easy to understand. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I know you compare keystone species with ecosystem engineers often, i think it would be best if you defined what a keystone species was first and also provide a link to keystone species on wikipedia in case readers don’t know what it is. Also I am not sure what a “buzz word” is. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Just giving the reader more context or defining words better. Also I am a bit confused what autogenic organisms are because they say “not considered ecosystem engineering” but it’s still listed under Cases of Ecosystem engineers. I know you didn’t write this but maybe being more clear to help readers. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! Good job on citing sources correctly. I also think your information fit really well into the article. Lead: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? I’m not sure where exactly the lead is supposed to be, so making that more clear. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? There is no lead currently. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? There is no lead currently. Content Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is, but make sure it is open to readers who do not know much about ecology. Is the content added up-to-date? I think so. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Just defining words better. Tone and Balance Is the content added neutral? Yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Are there viewpoints that are over- or under-represented? No, but I liked how you included a controversy section. Sources and References Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Are the sources current? Yes. Organization Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the writing level is good too. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is only one image and one table, but the table does enhance my understanding. Are images well-captioned? Yes. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not sure. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. Overall impressions Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it is for sure more clear. What are the strengths of the content added? Easy to understand and read. How can the content added be improved? Just being more specific.

Peer Review
I appreciated how you differentiated the term ecosystem engineer from other similar ecological concepts such as keystone species and trophic effects. I think including the example of Callianassa filholi was interesting, but it could be further clarified by further elaboration and more clearly stating how they impact and change the ecosystem. I felt the controversy section was a cool aspect of this subject that I (and probably many others) hadn't considered when using this term. Overall I felt the tone was formal and that you added a lot of important information that flowed well with the existing article. You could maybe add more wiki-links but it's also fine the way it is now. Great job! Samanthali123 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Sam