User:Minhokorea/Mirocaris/FloppingFish 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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?)

Minho (minhokorea)

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Minhokorea/Mirocaris?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template) (reproductive biology section)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Mirocaris

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead

Lead of the article is sound overall, the only sentence that is slightly confusing is "Sometimes considered the only genus of the family Mirocarididae, Mirocaris is usually placed in the family Alvinocarididae." I would consider rephrasing this to be more clear as to why this confusion in classification is the case.

Content

The content added to the Reproductive Biology section is insightful, and follows the Wikipedia guidelines of being unbiased. Only one source is used in this section, which would normally be problematic but I suspect that there is not a lot of research papers on Mirocaris reproduction so it is understandable.

Tone and Balance

As mentioned before, the content added is not biased in any way but rather compiled in an informative manner. There is no persuasiveness or leading the reader to make a certain conclusion, the content is just synthesized information which makes it up to the reader to extract knowledge from it.

Sources and References

Also mentioned before, only one source is used in this section but it is a reliable source that is relatively up to date (2006). Another source or two would vastly strengthen this portion of the article, even if it is not directly about Mirocaris shrimp (it could be about another vent shrimp's reproduction so you can compare the two or something like that). The link for the article works well.

Organization

The content is well-organized, grammatically correct, and flows smoothly. The only suggestion I would have here is to find a better transition sentence/introductory sentence at the beginning of your section. This "The ovaries of a female M. fortunata are situated behind and below the carapace" seems like a very blunt start to the section which without context (people scrolling down just to see the reproduction section) could disinterest the reader. Perhaps start with a sentence about how much is known about Mirocaris reproduction or how unique it is or something to pull the reader in before laying the scientific facts. Or simply state what type of reproductive method Mirocaris shrimp use, for example for mine I stated that Viperfish reproduce through spawning. Also, make sure to add some more hyperlinks (perhaps on carapace and fecundity, for example, since some people might need more context on that).

Images and Media

There are no images or media included in this section (don't think it is necessary).

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think this section of the article is strong and well-written. I think a little bit more general info on how they reproduce would strengthen the section a lot. I personally don't think mentioning the size of the oocytes is necessary, especially since the sentence is repetitive -

"At this stage, the oocytes are typically 25-30 µm. The oocytes then undergo a process of meiosis, splitting the diploid (2n) oocyte into a haploid (n) cell. At this stage, the oocytes are typically 85-95 µm.

- This can probably either be compounded into one sentence or removed entirely (not the middle sentence since that is insightful/necessary).

Great job Minho! I think if you implement some of these suggestions you'll have a great article on your hands!

- Federico (FloppingFish)