Wikipedia:Peer review/Laevistrombus canarium/archive1

Laevistrombus canarium

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for a future FA candidacy. A broader scrutiny is needed to determine what needs to be changed, improved or expanded; The article covers up most of the topics about this species, but I am sure there is much to improve. A MoS review would be very welcome as well.

Thanks, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall comments: For the most part the article looks to be in good condition and it reads well. Here are a few comments that I hope are helpful as you go forward:

If strombus canarium is the more common synonym, why isn't it used as the name of the article? Perhaps the article could explain why laevistrombus canarium is the preferred name, especially in light of the "Phylogeny" section content.
There are multiple, possibly unnecessary uses of the additive term "also", plus an "Additionally". Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy, for example.
"...burrowing behavior of S. canarium consists of a series of behaviors..." A behavior consisting of behaviors? Perhaps you could use a second term here.
There are multiple brief paragraphs. Please see Wikipedia:Paragraphs#Paragraphs.
"Recent studies indicate..." is a time-dependent statement that lacks a date. Please see Wikipedia:MoS#Chronological items.
Some curiosity questions that didn't appear to be answered by the article:
- What is their average expected life span after they reach adulthood?
- Is there a range of environments that they can tolerate? (Temperature, depth, salinity, &c.)
In cases where the article is using web-based references, the cites don't seem properly developed. If possible it should show author, date, work and publisher information. Examples: "Wordinfo.com" and "Online guide to Check Jawa: Gong-gong".
The "External links" section should go at the end, per WP:ELPOINTS.

Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RJH! Your suggestions are very helpful. I shall see to it that each comment receives proper attention. Best wishes! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]