User:Nsg1029/Palaemon paludosus/Ral1092 Peer Review

General info
Nsg1029
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Nsg1029/Palaemon paludosus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Palaemon paludosus

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.)

Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic.It was distracting talking a bout their reproduction with no other context. Maybe talk about where they're from and or what they look like. This article is neutral and there is no heavy biased. There are no citations and no links to click on, and not even an article title. Also there are no refreences, I have no clue where the information comes from. I would work on adding more information, and being able to actually cite it with having links that work. Maybe the extra research could be on more general basic facts that point the picture.


 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?