User:ChaseTerry548440/Rapids/Marythemuffinlady 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.

Whose work are you reviewing?

ChaseTerry548440

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:ChaseTerry548440/Rapids

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Rapids

Lead: The lead sentence is clearly states the topic of the draft, rapid biodiversity.

Content:

- "Similarly in the Araguaia River in Brazil, there was an abundance of species from the order Characiformes and cichlids from the order Cichliformes.": I would suggest the addition of a sentence here to summarize what the two previous examples describe about biodiversity. Do these particular species express an aspect of biodiversity, other than just species richness? If not, may want to simply state it shows that rapids have a high biodiversity of fish, etc.

- "In the Peixe River in Brazil, common species that were present are Leporinus obtusidens, Bryconamericus iheringii, and Bryconamericus stramineus, which as all part of the Characiformes order.": Again, I would suggest the addition of a sentence here to summarize what the previous examples say about the biodiversity. Does this disagree with previous examples & exhibit a lower biodiversity? Does it agree with previous examples of high biodiversity? Do these species infer something specific about the biodiversity of those particular rapids? Etc.

- "Another new species Hyphessobrycon rheophilus from the order Characiformes has also been discovered.": I would suggest an addition here to elaborate on what a new species says about the biodiversity.

- "Species present in the Luongo river were Barbus puellus from the order Barbus, Kneria paucisquamata from the order Kneria, and two species from the order Siluriformes - Amphilius platychir and Clarias submarginatus.": I would suggest an addition of a sentence here to elaborate on the previous examples and how the species data relates to biodiversity. Does this show a difference in biodiversity due to tropical region of examples? Is it concurrent with previous statements made on rapid biodiversity? Etc.

- "Common orders found in river rapids tends to point out to species from the order Characiformes and Siluriformes. Species from Characiformes that are present in river rapids seem to be characterized by smaller heads and mouth regions and wide fusiform bodies which would be advantageous for fish species swimming in rapids.": I would suggest an addition to explain more about the common orders. What about Siluriformes morphology? What do these common orders say about the biodiversity of the rapids? Are these large orders, etc.?

- "Many of these species are dependent on the rapids for an assortment of things such as nutrient gathering and spawning. Similarly in Europe, Dnieper River, we can see macroinvertebrates from the orders Amphipoda, Mysida, and Veneroida.": I would suggest an additional sentence here to explain the importance to biodiversity. What do macroinvertebrates say about the biodiversity? Do these particular species highlight something specific about the biodiversity? Etc.

Tone/Balance: The tone of the drafts seems to be neutral.

Sources/References: The sources are up to date and well used throughout the article draft.

- Need to add sources into bibliography.

Organization:

- "Species are abundant in many of these rapids such as the Xingu River in Brazil.": I would suggest to edit sentence so it is clear you are talking about fish species & not all fish species, so may want to try "Some species of fish..." etc.

- "...Tometes kranponhah being present.": The "being present" seems unnecessary here, I would suggest an edit.

- "Although Bullheads (Cottus gobio) is mainly associated with the rapids, other species such as brown trout (Salmo trutta), chubs (Leuciscus cephalus), and stone loaches (Barbatula barbatula).": I would suggest to add in "are present/were identified in rapids" at the end of sentence; this is because it would be "other species...are present" which is more clear.

- "Species from Characiformes that are present in river rapids seem to be characterized by smaller heads and mouth regions and wide fusiform bodies which would be advantageous for fish species swimming in rapids.": Need to edit sentence for flow; may change to "smaller heads and mouth regions as well as/along with wide fusiform bodies"