User:HolliSmith/Calcinus laurentae/Kianacac Peer Review

General info
(provide username) HolliSmith
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:HolliSmith/Calcinus laurentae:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Calcinus laurentae

Evaluate the drafted changes
Please answer the following questions in detail addressed to the classmate whose article you are reviewing. Remember this is constructive feedback, so be polite and clear in your suggestions for improving their article. We are all working together to improve the Wikipedia pages for species native to Hawaii and for the World to meet.

Use a different font style (bold or italic) for your answers so it is easy for the author to see your comments!


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Article provides detailed information about their species, adding the pictures to their species enhances the reader's understanding of the crab's physical characteristics and habitat.
 * 3) Check the main points of the article:
 * 4) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 5) * yes
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 7) * yes
 * 8) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 9) * Each section is appropriate however, I think minor adjustments in the ordering of some details could enhance clarity.
 * 10) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 11) * Yes
 * 12) Check the sources:
 * 13) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 14) * yes
 * 15) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 16) * yes
 * 17) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 18) * yes
 * 19) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 20) * Some sources seem reliable
 * 21) Give some suggestions on how to improve the article (think of anything that could be explained in more details or with more clarity or any issues addressed in the questions above):
 * 22) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 23) * Elaborating more on the reproductive behavior and ecological significance of Calcinus laurentae, specifying the depth range in which the species is commonly found and providing more context on its role within the marine ecosystem would enhance the readers understanding.
 * 24) * Is the article ready for prime-time and the world to see on Wikipedia? If not, how could the author improve the article to be ready?
 * 25) * While the article provides valuable information, enhancing its depth and ensuring the majority of sources are scholarly would improve its readiness for publication on Wikipedia.
 * 26) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The author could improve the article by conducting additional research to fill in any gaps in information, particularly regarding reproductive behavior and ecological interactions and that the sources are reliable.
 * 27) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I should add pictures for my readers and add in the sources linked with the little numbers.