User talk:Rehema.karanja/Echinus (sea urchin)

Peer review Nov 6, final project due Nov 8.

Requirements: 18 sentences (6 sentences each), 3 images (1 image each), 3 references (1 reference each)

Subjects to expand on, with links to use as references: 1. original description: I have the actual pdf saved to the lab computer but it is too big for me to download, I can try to send it or just do this section myself Linnaeus, C. (1758). Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata [10th revised edition], vol. 1: 824 pp. Laurentius Salvius: Holmiae. , available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/726886 [details]

2. could focus of describing an important species within this genus. All of the species are listed here with links to the peer reviewed paper that originally described them: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=123386

-if there is a certain species you would like to write on but the paper on it is locked and you cannot find it online let me know I have access to all of the papers on that website

3. write about a different specices

-there are only 6 species in this genus so alternatively we could all pick two species, and write three sentences on them. The website above has all of the papers describing the morphology of each species and typically the habitat and other ecological information.

I made you a peer review

 * The Lead had been updated from the previous content, considering the original page had only one 7 word sentence.
 * The Lead introduces the topic and states what it is a genus of, could be a compound sentence but it gets immediately to the point of the article and clears up any confusion on what Echinus is.
 * The Lead acts more of an introduction with background information and does not include an outline of the articles main sections
 * The Lead does include information not present in the article but it is relevant background information
 * The Lead is concise
 * The content added is relevant to the topic
 * For the most part the content is up to date but the references list has 3 different references ranging from 50 years old to 120 years old
 * there is no content on reproduction or circulation, but considering the previous article had little to nothing down, I think the amount of content they were able to produce should be enough but if they were to add more that's what I would add
 * the content is neutral, unbiased and not over or under represented in any way
 * There is no positions or sides to this article, its not a persuasive document
 * All the content is backed up with reliable sources
 * The content accurately reflects what the sources are also saying
 * The sources are thorough
 * All but 3 sources are current
 * The links do work
 * The content added is well written, concise, clear and overall a great piece of written work
 * I could not find any grammatical or spelling errors
 * The content added is broken down into sections, the Lead and then 5 different main topics that they cover
 * One of the images caption only states its latin binomial, it should say the common name as well
 * The article does include images the are relevant and captivating
 * The images are laid out in a appealing manner to me
 * The images do adhere to wikipedias copyright policies

Katjstephens (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)