User:AcousticSonar48/Dictyosphaeria cavernosa/Jahjah2321 Peer Review

General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing AcousticSonar48's article


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AcousticSonar48/Dictyosphaeria_cavernosa?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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) The article gave a good description of the algae Dictyospharia Cavernosa. I liked how they described how it looks. good for identifying it myself.
 * 2) Check the main points of the article:
 * 3) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 4) ** yes it only discusses Dictyospharia Cavernosa
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 6) ** There are no sections other than description and references.
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 8) ** There should be more sections
 * 9) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 10) ** the writing style is good. maybe should be more scientific.
 * 11) Check the sources:
 * 12) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 13) ** No, this needs to be added.
 * 14) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 15) ** yes, there is a reference list below
 * 16) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 17) ** No
 * 18) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 19) ** these sources seem to be of quality.
 * 20) 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):
 * 21) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 22) * 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?
 * 23) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 24) The most important thing to do to improve this article is to add more info for each section.
 * 25) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?