User:Jacksondenny82/Armases cinereum/Dlee0 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jackson Denny


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Armases cinereum


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
There is a lot of great information here!


 * I think everything in the article is relevant to the topic. Not much really distracted me. The Information given seems relevant and all of the given information seems to be formatted into each correct, corresponding section. Well done.
 * I don't think there is necessarily any claim/motive in this article. It seems rather to be an informational article.
 * I dont think there is really any part of the article that is necessarily over or under represented. However, my only bit of criticism could be that -
 * maybe combine some of the sections you have. I feel that rather than being specific with habitat / distribution and diet / ecology, you could generalize such as:
 * Taxonomy first,
 * Appearance / Structure (of the organism),
 * then introduce habitat and diet in the same section.
 * Your citations are very extensive and the links work. Very well done here!
 * A lot of the information is definitely relating to the referenced articles (numbered relating to the sources cited at the bottom of the article). Again, all of the sources seem to be working, and there are plenty of them.
 * Appearance / Structure (of the organism),
 * then introduce habitat and diet in the same section.
 * Your citations are very extensive and the links work. Very well done here!
 * A lot of the information is definitely relating to the referenced articles (numbered relating to the sources cited at the bottom of the article). Again, all of the sources seem to be working, and there are plenty of them.
 * A lot of the information is definitely relating to the referenced articles (numbered relating to the sources cited at the bottom of the article). Again, all of the sources seem to be working, and there are plenty of them.
 * A lot of the information is definitely relating to the referenced articles (numbered relating to the sources cited at the bottom of the article). Again, all of the sources seem to be working, and there are plenty of them.

Great job!