User:Alizepal/Chondrocidaris gigantea/KOSMiKiNG Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Alizepal


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Alizepal/Chondrocidaris gigantea
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Chondrocidaris gigantea
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Chondrocidaris gigantea

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 species native to Hawaii and for the World to meet.

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?
 * 3) ** I liked the amount of sources the author was able to use and pull information from
 * 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)
 * 6) ** Yes, the article discusses only the species assigned
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) ** No, the information given can be split up into different subtitles
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) ** The information under article body should be seperated into their appropriate sections
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) ** Yes the language of the article is appropriate
 * 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?
 * 15) ** yes
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 17) ** yes
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 19) ** yes
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 21) ** there are some outdated sources used but they are appropriate for the article
 * 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?
 * 24) ** dividing up the article into appropriate subtitles would help out a lot. For my article I drew inspiration for these subtitles by looking up other wikipedia pages of species similar to the one I was working on to get an idea of how to title each subtitle for the apporpriate information
 * 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?
 * 26) ** no, just need to split up the subtitles
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 28) split up the subtitles
 * 29) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 30) finding more credible sources and references