User:Daltonanderson1002/Cliona celata/Anyaeweber Peer Review

General info
Kbgsu25
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daltonanderson1002/Cliona_celata?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Cliona celata

Evaluate the drafted changes
The introduction to the morphology section is very well done. It is clear and concise while still having all of the relevant information. There's not much about the rest of the section either, except for the lack of sources. There is only one source listed for six sentences of information. While the singular source appears credible, it would look better to have more sources corroborating the information. I have similar feedback for the reproduction section. While it is very in-depth, informative, and well-phrased, it only includes one citation for three paragraphs of information. I think more research could definitely be done before it joins the published article.