User:Caleedenman/Phoronis/Spaintlia Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Caleedenman


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Phoronis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

- you made great headings and subheadings for every section that made it easier to find information.

- it would be good to include a general description about the genus to better introduce the animal genus.

- If you are able to find more information on the distribution of the genus, that would be great to add to the article.

Content:

- all the content is related to the topic, and would prove to be a great asset for the article. I liked how you are including a lot more information on the anatomical structure of the genus and how it develops from child to adult life stages.

Tone and Balance:

- the tone was neutral and did not seem to show any bias.

Sources and References:

- The sources seemed pretty reliable and there were a lot of current sources dating from the 2000s.

- it would be better to look at additional sources to support your information because you only seem to be using two sources.

Organization:

- For the most part, the information is well-written and concise. All the information was straight to the important and included necessary material.

Images and Media:

- it would be great to add images of the genus and a diagram of the anatomical structure of the animal.

Overall Impression:

- I think you did a great job including relevant and unbiased information. I would focus on finding more sources and information about the genus other than its general structure. Also, it would be great to add images.