User talk:ZachRumley/Stomiidae

Peer Review
I read the added section on jaw morphology and I think the information is relevant and adds to the overall wiki page. The added description is informational and addresses a gap of knowledge within the wiki page. The added sources are included properly and necessary information is sited. I would recommend proofreading this section for some minor spelling and grammatical errors. Tornewt (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I also read the section on jaw morphology. The information is relevant and well organized. I would also suggest some rearrangement in terms of grammar and flow in the first and last paragraphs. For example there are some run-on sentences. In addition, in the first paragraph there are a lot of comparative terms but I am not sure what other organism these comparisons are being made to? Other species in the family?Sophiaschortmann


 * I read the added sections on habitat and behavior for the dragonfish. I think the information was super interesting and I feel that I learned something about the dragonfish that was not previously present on the wikipedia page. My one comment is that it might be beneficial to hot link some of the words and species that are mentioned in the edits, but not explained, such as rhodopsin. I think it would help for people reading this wikipedia article that do not have the background in itchyology. Source 10 and 18 also aren't cited properly, one is missing the journal title, and 18 doesn't actually have any citations attached. Otherwise, I really liked this information. Psween23 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the bioluminescence and reproduction features section and my comments are very similar to everyone else’s. The content is relevant and definitely filled some knowledge gaps. I would also say to hyperlink to other wiki pages to terms like vitellogenesis and gonochoristic (both of these have wiki pages). The second sentence in the bioluminescence section is also a little bit of a run-on and could just be split in two. Also the citations indicated above (18 and 10) were added properly but 18 still needs a title. Otherwise, it looks really good and the information was succinct. Really cool information! Vidalka (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

For Evolution of sensory organs: The information is very good and interesting to read. One of the citations is just [kenaley] which could be changed to link. The links all worked and were relevant. It would be interesting to hear about any evolutionary history available rather than just the current known information. Overall, I think it is important information that flushes out the article well. millstf