User talk:Olivesaregreen/Nanomia bijuga

Peer review

The outline for the article is nicely done, however I would recommend some taxonomical information on the species in its own specific section as this is very common practice among other Wikipedia pages for marine species and is often one of the things that individuals first search for when viewing an article upon a particular species. It is a good start, but I do believe that there can be a benefit of running the draft through a grammar checker as to avoid any minor grammatical mistakes. i thoroughly liked the diet section and thought that it was well done and well written. The information used in some parts of the article can benefit from some updated information if available, which I strongly suggest more time be spent on that to provide the most up-to date accurate information. Overall, the article is off to a great start. Jeremiahbravo (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall, I think this article does a good job of displaying information regarding Nanomia bijuga and really expands on the original information that was presented on the Wiki page. The structure of the article was clearly presented with relevant information that is backed up by credible sources and references. I would suggest fixing some grammatical errors, such as incorporating more commas or breaking up some run on sentences for better flow. Additionally, in the "Tone and Balance" section of my peer review, I added some suggestions to make the article slightly more formal, but all pretty minor changes. I also think adding images would greatly help readers visualize Nanomia bijuga. Great job guys! Rexyshy8 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review

I enjoyed reading this article and I think the additions you have made are well constructed and informative! There are a few places where some improvements could be made to make the writing easier to comprehend, both grammar and syntax related. Additionally, I offered a few suggestions on citations and references as well as some organizational improvements that could help the flow of the article. Really good start! It's clear you've done a lot of work. AudreyS99 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)