User:Newyorkmainer/Lissocarcinus orbicularis/Grace.blackwell Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Newyorkmainer


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Newyorkmainer/Lissocarcinus orbicularis


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Lissocarcinus orbicularis

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The lead is concise containing a good introductory sentence, the only thing I would change is the wording right after the species name; "common names". Instead use something that flows better, such as "or more commonly known as..." or "more commonly referred to as..." The lead makes it clear that the article highlights the harlequin crab with a brief description of the sections that are to follow- missing reproduction and diet.

The content of the article is relevant and is written in very neutral language. In the second paragraph of the morphology section add "family" after " Portunidae" just to make it clearer for readers who could get easily confused or lost. All sections of the content are very easy to read and have very good flow/ organization. Although there is no mention of the reproduction and the diet in the lead section. There is no bias or persuasion of the reader and all of the content provided is up to date and relevant to the current sources chosen. It still contains content from the original article (or so it seems) and all the pictures within the article are relevant and enhance the articles overall organization. They also all have the correct formatting.

My overall impression of the article is that there is not a lot to critique about the content in the article so far. Continue with the relevant details and the neutral language. All of the media enhances your topic and your sources are up to date and relevant to your topic. The only thing I would look over is small grammatical errors, but other than that, very good job! I don't see a lot that needs to be critiqued.