User:Diqi Yan/Aurelia coerulea/Skeuwter 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?

(provide username) Diqi Yan

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Diqi Yan/Aurelia coerulea
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): current article doesn't exist yet.

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

The lead reflects the new information that was added, however it also mentions information that wasn't talked about in other parts of the article, that I think would be beneficial to talk about. For example you could talk about what pharmaceuticals has been made with the chemicals from the jellies, or maybe talk about the research going into that.
The lead does include a good introduction sentence.
The lead does include information on all of the major sections. This has lots of good information.
The lead does include information that is not in other parts of the article. (see question 1 of this section)
The lead is concise, but still very informative.

Content

All of the content added was relevant and up to date.
I believe that it would be good to talk more about how moon jelly population blooms affect humans, as well as how their chemical defenses could be of use.

Tone and Balance

This article is unbiased and completely neutral, it contain concise and clear information on moon jellies.

Sources and References

All new information is cited from reliable sources, and the information that was added reflects what the sources say accurately.
The sources are current and thoroughly cover moon jellies.
The links to the sources work except for 13, but I was able to find the article really easily via google scholar.

Organization

There is a lot of good new content that is concise, clear, and well written, but there are some errors in the draft. In this, I am making suggestions for changes in bold. In the lead section, I would advise you to make the following changes to the second sentence, "This species is native to Japan, and they can also be found in coastal areas of China, Korea, California, the Mediterranean, and other temperate seas. They are particularly abundant in artificial habitats and sheltered regions." In the first sentence of the living habitat section there is a spelling error, I believe you meant to say that, "A.coerulea are weak swimmers, and they are mainly distributed in artificial constructions, as those structures can protect the polyps from being washed away." There is also another error in the second sentence, "A.coerulea polyps are more tolerant." There are some other minor styling things in the life cycle section that I would recommend changing. I'd recommend making the sentence where you are talking about reproduction in different temperatures into different sentences.
Other than these small errors, the content is well organized.

Overall impressions

The article does include some links to help its discovery, its sourced well, and its organized well, but it is still a draft. It has a set of errors that I would recommend fixing before publishing it.
The article's content is concise, informative, and interesting, but I believe that it is missing some information about the moon jellies potential pharmaceutical applications.