User talk:Jwhelpley/sandbox

In overall, this page is well organized and clearly stated. Also, writer uses short and concise sentences which help readers to understand information of the page without confusion.

I would suggest for the author to add some pictures of the species because they would not familiar to common people and.. they are beautiful!

--Youlkwon (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Youl Kwon

Feedback from Emily

Emilysessa (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Very nice page! Well organized and well written. Some comments...

The Etymology section needs to have references/citations added. Currently there aren't any links to citations in this section. Ditto the genome section, there's only one citation.

There are quite a few places where there are words that have their own wikipedia pages that you could link to (e.g., embryogenesis in the development section). Please give the page a quick read-through and add these kinds of internal links wherever possible. Ditto all the organisms mentioned in the last sentence of the development section.

Can you add a morphology section? You provide a few brief words about morphology in the first paragraph at the very top, but it would be really useful to have an actual section that gives the basics of their morphology. This is especially true given that there isn't any such description on the page for the genus, so there's currently nowhere to find this information on wikipedia. I would add the early development and regeneration sections in with the morphology section; Morphology could be a main heading and those could be secondary headings within, this would improve the overall organization a bit since the order of headings right now seems a bit scattered.

In the Habitat section, you have superscripts for citations 3 and 4 but they don't link to anything.

Nice work overall!