User:Mtav7/Encope emarginata/MSabb1234 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mtav7


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mtav7/Encope emarginata


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Introduction:


 * Concise and clear
 * Good amount of information for your articles current length.

Description:


 * Concise, but a little too concise.
 * I personally do not know what the test is, and it isn't clear yet in your article. I hope that the picture you plan to add is an anatomy picture; I think that it would greatly enhance your entire article(even if it is just a hand drawn figure).

Habitat and Distribution:


 * Clear and concise; easy to follow and understand.

Taxonomy:


 * Clear, concise, and well written.
 * My only suggestion here is to elaborate on the date range for Pliocene and Pleistocene.
 * Even something simple like this: "Fossils can be dated back to the Pliocene or Pleistocene, over 3 million years ago."

Bioturbation:


 * Great organization and elaboration. Everything was clear and concise.

Overall:


 * So far almost everything is clear, concise, and easy to read. My only issues were that at times you were a little too concise, but that is extremely easy to fix with some supporting small details.
 * I am not sure if you are planning to talk about reproduction, but I really think that your article could benefit from even a brief explanation of reproduction for sand dollars.