User:MadisonOliver7/Hexactinellid/LanceJAndrew 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?

MadisonOliver7

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MadisonOliver7/Hexactinellid
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Missing grammatical articles for many nouns.

"Most hexactinellid live in deep waters..."

Needs to be pluralized

"The new regulations prohibit bottom contact fishing within 200 meters of the sponge reefs."

Not directly relevant to the sponges I think, since you already mentioned that the area is protected.

"Experiment using the species Aphrocallistes vastus..."

"Experiment" either needs an article or needs to be pluralized, depending on how many studies

"...have shown that increases in temperature and acidification can lead to weakened skeletal stength and stiffness."

whole rest of sentence is italicized when it shouldn't be.

bibliography dropped in the middle of the draft?

"In the case Rhabdocalyptus dawsoni, the sponge used electrical signaling to detect outside stimuli"

This whole sentence uses past tense when it doesn't really make sense to

" Another species in the same experiment of R. dawsoni..."

ambiguous language. What species?

"...showed that the electrical conduction system for this class of sponges all has its own limit of when they will detect outside stimuli that would cause a feeding halt response."

might try and rephrase this, it doesn't make sense to me.

"Only 33 species of this sponge have ever been reported in the South Atlantic until recently with the Shinkai 6500 submersible expedition through the Rio Grande Rise."

When is recently? Be specific. "Recent" changes based on when you read it.

"Species of zoantharin..."

I'm not sure what "zoantharin" is supposed to be referencing, since it's not formatted like a taxon name. If it's a genus it needs to be capsed and italicized. If it's a family or subfamily you need the whole name there.

"...if these are identified as the same as the ones found in Miami-Torishima, the existence of hexactinellid in the entire Pacific Ocean could be inferred."

Wikipedia REALLY doesn't like "own research" type stuff. Inferences should not be included at all.

"With around 75% of the sponge tissue being fused in this way."

Sentence fragment, also the citation needs to be moved to before the period.

I think the organization works well, but there are some formatting and grammar issues that need to be addressed. Content looks fine, but I think the conservation portion gets a little off topic at times.

Images look relevant, but the bottom one is missing a caption