User:AMLeeward/Smaragdinella calyculata/Jaeden D Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

AMLeeward


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AMLeeward/Smaragdinella_calyculata?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article
 * Smaragdinella calyculata

Evaluate the drafted changes
Please answer the following questions in detail addressed to the classmate whose article you are reviewing. Remember this is constructive feedback, so be polite and clear in your suggestions for improving their article. We are all working together to improve the Wikipedia pages for the amazing species.

Use a different font style (bold or italic) for your answers so it is easy for the author to see your comments!


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? What impressed me was the amount of available information there are based on the specific species they are researching on. The structure of your article could look more appealing by making your subject's headers to make it eye-catching so readers to see this section is about this information on the invertebrate.
 * 3) * I agree with this, it needs to be more interesting.
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) This article strongly discusses the species they are working on from the lead, description, distribution, and habitat describing only their invertebrate.
 * 6) * Thanks!
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? The subtitles are appropriate for each of the sections defining their invertebrate in each specific area.
 * 8) * Thanks!
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? For the most part, each section feels appropriate with the information that is given but one suggestion that I would make would be in your description. I would move where you talk about where it lives into your habitat section rather than the description.
 * 10) * I will make sure all of my information should be in the right section!
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The writing style and the language of the article are very much appropriate since they express the information in their own words and have a large variety of information to look over for everyone to see.
 * 12) * Thanks!
 * 13) Check the sources:
 * 14) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Each statement, for the most part, has in-text links to at least one of the sources on the bottom but there are some parts that don't they could just be extended statements that have links at the end of every few sentences.
 * 15) * Okay!
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is a reference list that is at the bottom of this person's article.
 * 17) * Thanks!
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes and No, because it seems there are links with numbers and links that don't have a little number.
 * 19) * I will make sure to fix that!
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources? The quality of their sources is reliable with tons of information with references where the data was gathered and put together.
 * 21) * Thanks!
 * 22) Give some suggestions on how to improve the article (think of anything that could be explained in more details or with more clarity or any issues addressed in the questions above):
 * 23) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Specific changes I would make to this article are making the subjects into headings to catch the audience's attention telling them what this part is about.
 * 24) * Okay!
 * 25) * Is the article ready for prime-time and the world to see on Wikipedia? If not, how could the author improve the article to be ready? Currently, this article is not ready for prime-time for the whole world to see but it is easily fixable to be ready. A suggestion I would make would be to paraphrase your sentences more making them simpler for the audience to read. Fix your references section by deleting the top part because it kind of makes it confusing between the ones with the numbers on the bottom. Lastly, again just make your sections into headers.
 * 26) * I also agree there should not be a lot of sentences, but less and more descriptive sentences.
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing the author could do to improve the article would just to not think so hard about creating your sentences because you can still convey the information in your own way without plagiarizing such as typing out exactly what comes to your mind.
 * 28) Okay!
 * 29) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Something from this article that would be applicable to my article would be the numbering in the references and linking my information to them.
 * 30) I will make sure to number and link my references!