User talk:Madalynkeifer/Roboastra tentaculata

External Review
Hi Madalynkeifer - My name is Jolie, and I'm the Project Coordinator for the WikiProject Limnology & Oceanography team. Your external review for your article on Roboastra tentaculata is posted below. If you have any questions about your review, or would like to clarify anything, please feel free to let me know by posting a message on my talk page and I'll pass it along to your external reviewer. Thanks, and all the best as you wrap up your Wikipedia editing assignment!

EXTERNAL REVIEW - Hello! I’m Krystyn and I’m currently in my second year as a PhD student, meaning that I have many years to go in my education. As a grad student, I still go to school and learn from professors as a student, perform research and do experiments as a scientist, and teach undergrads in their own classes as a teacher. It’s a constant revolving door of responsibilities. My research interests are within the field of limnology or the study of lakes and river and all things freshwater. (Though, I have a bachelor’s in marine science and lived on the coast my whole life, so I’ll still be able to help with your article). My particular focus is studying eutrophication (a process of excessive nutrient loading into water) and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), bacteria that are capable of photosynthesis and are responsible for providing oxygen and food for many other organisms in lakes. These guys make these crazy blooms that can take over the lakes surface and create toxins and generally disrupt and destabilize an entire lake. I’m currently studying the interactions between different species of cyanobacteria, spatial differences in their community composition, and the effects of nitrogen on their growth.

Review summary:

First off, what you have written is definitely an improvement on the previous Wikipedia entry. You were able to expand and even add additional categories of information, as well as provide the article with additional resources. The writing style is professional and neutral, so it follows the guidelines of the assignment and wiki. Your article is also easy to read and follow, with proper links to other sources if I were to have questions about further content. To my knowledge, what you have written is also correct.

A few minor concerns that I have:

While the previous version of the Wikipedia article pales in comparison to the description you provide on the Roboastra tentaculata, it still summarizes the type of organism it is – a sea slug. (This may go beyond the scope of the review, but it’s important for future science writing). There are multiple facets to science and one of the most important parts is being able to quickly relate your research to a broad audience. To do that, you have to break down what something is into terms that everyone can understand. I know from personal experience that when it comes to a research article, you’re expected to be sciencey and use jargon, but the actual trick is to keep it simple. If you’re talking about a sea slug – call it a sea slug.

Another point I have is that in the morphology description section it would be awesome to have a picture of the slug. I am the last person you should ask about usage rights, but I believe you can find a picture here: {https://www.philippine-sea-slugs.com/Nudibranchia/Doridina/Roboastra_tentaculata_01.htm}. The person who owns the picture has the information for citing it on the webpage.

I think a point that sticks out to me that could use more description is the oral tentacles. Rhinosphores, radula, and their reproduction system is information that seem not unique with sea slugs, but the presence of oral tentacles is a characteristic that has separated them phylogenetically from other sea slugs. It would be neat to have a sentence on the purpose of those tentacles and the advantage of having those tentacles.

JoGDelta (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)