User:Jhagani13/Sgtrab01/sandbox/Jhagani13 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• I'll be reviewing Sarah Trabue's draft on "Whale Fall", which is currently in her sandbox
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sgtrab01/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation

• First sentence is incorrect - "whale fall" refers to the deep falling of whale carcasses, not cetacean carcasses (not all cetaceans are whales).
• The last sentence of the first paragraph, specifically "the use of punctual submersible and ROV observations in order to understand patterns of benthic ecological succession" is a little technical - if there is no simpler way to say this I would 1. spell out what ROV stands and 2. provide links to pages on complicated things like "benthic ecological succession".
• Second sentence of second paragraph: Should say "new species have been discovered [IN or ON] whale falls", and numbers less than 10 should be spelled out if they are not the first word of a sentence. (Rewrite the whole sentence)
• Second sentence of the third paragraph should probably have a citation. ("In the coastal ocean...")

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?

Content evaluation

Contribution to the Biological Pump:

• Good section, nice job separating the original into smaller, cleaner paragraphs.

Discovery:

• Little change from the original paragraph
• Is there a source for the first sentence?
• Same for the first sentence of the second paragraph? Maybe this is unnecessary but I feel like when you're making claims about "the first" of something you might need a source.

Ecology:

• Renamed and reorganized what was originally the "organisms" section. Think this is a good change, as the section contained more than just organismal information.
• Second paragraph - write out all numbers ("3 and 5 trophic levels").
• Opening paragraphs of this section are very well written and informative. This is definitely a positive change from the original article.
• First sentence of the "Ecosystem stages" section - should be: "there are four stages..." (no "at").
• In the "stage 3" section put "SO₄^2-" in parentheses.
• Third sentence of the "methanogenesis" section needs a citation ("Whale falls do however..."). Same with the second to last sentence ("Methanogenesis appears to...")
• Removed the section on "variance in decomposition rates". Looking at the removed paragraph, it looks likes while some it has been reused seamlessly into other paragraphs, other bits were omitted from the article entirely. Was this because this information is outdated, improperly paraphrased, or unnecessary?

Palaeontology:

• I feel like this subject is usually spelled "Paleontology", but maybe that's just me.

Anthropogenic Effects:

• I like the addition of this section, but think a little more should be added. You mention that "Whale fall communities are also likely to face or are already facing impacts from fisheries and deep-sea mining." but don't actually provide any examples. Perhaps add a couple sentences on what those impacts are?

Contrast With Other Large Food Falls:

• The third to last sentence of the first paragraph ("The three rays found...") uses the word "varying" twice.
• The latter half of the first paragraph makes a lot of claims and references "another theory", but provides no citations.
• The citations at the end of this section need to be redone in the proper Wiki format (not just listed in parentheses at the end of the sentence).

See Also:

• Maybe at a couple more "see also" links?

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

• Tone and balance is neutral and takes no specific positions. To be fair, I'm not sure what position you could take on whale falls, it seems to be a relatively non-controversial concept. Sarah mentioned that the original article focused a little too heavily on the Osedax worms, and I think her changes have more neutrally provided information on their importance.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

• Other than my previous, almost all information in the article is backed up with reliable sources of information. 14+ sources were added on the subject. More importantly, the list of references was updated to reflect more recent literature. The original article referenced only one citation written post 2010, while the Sarah's version has 10.

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?

Organization evaluation

• Really great job!! I've mentioned any grammatical or spelling errors I caught previously, but the breakdown of the article is easy to follow and reflects the most important areas of the topic. Just a heads up that for some reason, the "Stage 4" section of the article does not appear on the table of contents. I think Sarah's changes to the structure and section layout of the article are an improvement.

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?

Images and media evaluation

• No new images were added, the current ones are pretty interesting and relevant. Adding a couple more to the final article would probably enhance it even further.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

Overall evaluation

• I think Sarah has done an awesome job updating the content and structure of this article. Information added is more properly cited, relevant, and reflects the up-to-date scientific knowledge on whale fall. I've given suggestions on how the article can be improved in previous sections, but I'm most nitpicking. Way to kill it!