User:Bellamorphosis/Ichthyodinium chabelardi/Mneschbach 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

• Whose work are you reviewing? bellamorphosis
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bellamorphosis/Ichthyodinium chabelardi
• Madison reviewed this article- username is mneschbach and email is meschba@siue.edu if you have questions!

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead has been extended to reflect content added.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence was updated to add links to other wikipedia pages. Good job! It introduces the species as a parasite and what kind of species it is.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does introduce each of the sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No, it has the right amount of detail.

Lead evaluation

The lead is great! The only thing I do not like is the phrase "According to Baldouf 2008". I think you might be able to delete this and just use the sentence and then site Baldouf. That's how we normally do it in scientific papers and it might make your page seem more professional if scientists read it.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are no gaps in content and I believe all of the information presented is valuable.

Content evaluation

Content is relevant and up to date. More could be added if reliable sources are available. I would like to know more about the pathology, or how the disease presents itself in the fish it infects.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

Good tone and balance! It remains neutral and does not try to convince readers of anything.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes but it may be possible to add more references as there are only a few presented. I know this is hard considering most of our parasites chosen do not have a surplus of reliable sources, by any means.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? There are current sources.
• Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Sources and references evaluation

More sources could be added but the ones added are up to date.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Check to make sure that you do not use "fishes" because the plural of fish is fish in most cases. I think there are certain instances where fishes can be used but you may want to avoid that all together.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is broken down into sections in a way that makes sense.

Organization evaluation

Content is organized and flows nicely.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

The article I have chosen to review does not have images or media. Adding images of the lifecycle/infection may help viewers if that is something that could be added by the author.

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

Images and media evaluation

An image or two could be added but as of now the article does not contain images or media.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes the article has been improved significantly and is more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • I am glad you added links to other terms to help people understand your information.
  • The lifecycle information has been added. This is extremely useful information to understanding this parasite. Great job on this!
  • Overall development of the article is much better than the original one published on wikipedia.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • syndinid- can you define this term in the description of the parasite. I am not crazy about the "in the beginning" sentence of the description sentence either. I realize the previous author used this not the person editing this article. In the beginning of what? Maybe change it to "Upon early research" or "when the organism was first discovered, it was characterized as..."
  • As previously mentioned, adding more sources will make your article better and might lead you to new information. I realize this is much easier said than done because there are not very many sources on our parasites chosen. The paper by Gleason is a review paper. You may be able to go to their paper and find more primary sources to add to your page.
  • You could link "Syndiniales" to another wikipedia page as I was not familiar with this word in the transmission section.
  • I could also see you adding an importance section or adding a sentence or two about its importance in the ecology section. It must be important to study if it infects fish that are eaten by people and damage their population size. I would like to know more on pathology, as mentioned, such as if it kills the fish or makes them sick etc.