User:Passer1ne2001/Cynarina lacrymalis/Scientist.alg.4 Peer Review

General info
Passer1ne2001
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Passer1ne2001/Cynarina lacrymalis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cynarina lacrymalis

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.)

Lead: Format edit

Content: All added content was relevant and expanded on previous points that cover general information

Tone and Balance: Tone is neutral and there is balance in perspectives.

Sources and References:

1.Previous source; good source

2. previous source; probably a good source, but I would recommend reviewing just ot make sure if you haven't

3. Link downloads a PDF of full article. Sources is a scientific paper also published in a scientific journal.

4. Link takes viewer to a online scientific hub. Source is a credible peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal. Not very recent.

5. Previous source; also should be a reliable source, but again, I recommend checking if you haven't

6. Previous source; good source, but is there any way you could link it to a library page or other place where more information about this source can be viewed? Understandable if not, but I feel that's a good thing to include for book sources.

7. Previous source; should be a good source, but again just check if you haven't.

8. Link takes viewer to an online scientific journal. Source is a credible peer-reviewed article. Relatively recent

9. Previous source; not a good source; not reliable in credibility.

Organization

Added content did not alter organization; which was well formatted already. No edits needed

Image and Media

No images added.

Overall Impression

Thank you for a summary of your edits! It was really helpful to me for finding and making sure I was reviewing all your work.

The content you added was a great addition! It was all relevant and well sourced. It did a great job expanding on the general information already provided. Well done!

You already mentioned this in your edit summary, but there is more information that can be added. I suggest following a structure of information like Professor Grey gives us for phyla in lectures. Maybe added information you can find on development and feeding strategies. Adding information about evolution is also a good option. But this is just things to consider moving forward.

In terms of things to fix in your current edits; I think you forgot to add a citation in the 'Distribution and habitat' section that was included after the first sentence from the original article. And I think you should explain more what a costae is or make the transition between the information of the septa to the costae more smooth. The sentence about the costae is very erupt and I don't understand how the costae relate to the septa.

Overall, great job!