User:Jblockychop/Lipid pump/Laurelceleste22 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing

Lipid Pump article

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jblockychop/Lipid_pump?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: I think the lead is well-written, but I would try and explain the lipid pump and article content in a more simplistic way, as this is the first thing a visitor to the page will read. In addition, the sentences start with phrases such as "This means" and "Resultantly", which could be swapped with more neutral language. I'm sure others mentioned this as well but you have floating citations across the top of the Lead.

Content: Overall, great job on the Lipid Pump wiki page. It is a very comprehensive article that is well-written and cohesive.

I would try and be consistent with how you refer to copepod species, either using C. or writing out Calanus. In addition, deciding whether you want to write Calanus or Calanus spp., as the usage varied throughout the article.

Some small formatting suggestions. First, make sure you define acronyms the first time you use them (e.g. SST in Calanus section). Also, I would suggest a link to the NAO wiki page when you first use the acronym.

I noticed that diapause is first mentioned in the Ecology sub-section but not explained until the Diapause vs. Diel Migration section. I would either briefly explain diapause when the concept is first introduced or reorder the sections. Another option would be to link to the diapause wiki page in the ecology section when the term is first used.

In terms of content order, it may make sense move the Lipid Pump vs. Biological pump section to the top. Within that section, I would suggest clearly defining the lipid pump, using language similar to what is currently in the Lead. It could work well to have the entire section titled "Lipid Pump" and subsections be "Lipid Shunt" and "Lipid pump vs. Biological pump". Is there a graphic of the lipid pump that could be included in the article? Or one illustrating vertical migration? I also think that the Climate Impacts sub-section could be it's own major section within the article, as it's so important.

Some other suggestions include adding an image/graphic of major ocean regions to the Regional Differences section. Additionally, the carbon cycle box included in the article seems to have a lot of unnecessary information and it takes up a lot of space. I think it might be fine to just link to the Carbon Cycle wiki page instead of including the whole box.

Tone and balance: The article is written in a neutral tone and does not attempt to persuade the reader in one way or another. Nice job!

Sources: It looks as though there's an error with a source in the DVM sub-section as well as a few sources in that section that are not yet cited in wiki. Additionally, there are some </ref> placeholders that need to be replaced in the Impacts on Other Organisms section. The ecology section and climate sections could use more references, but more broadly, make sure that almost every sentence is cited.

Overall, great article and I feel as though I learned a lot from reading it. My suggested changes are mostly minor and have to do with content organization. I look forward to reading the final draft!