User:Amenelogoleo/Echinostrephus aciculatus/Danica Que Peer Review

General info
Amenelogoleo
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Amenelogoleo/Echinostrephus aciculatus - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Echinostrephus aciculatus - Wikipedia

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) ** Reading through the description of their species and looking at the picture on the existing article matched, which I thought was good. The way the author described their species made it easy for me to visualize what it looked like.
 * 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 goes into depth about the species' characteristics.
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) ** The subtitles are named correctly. However, they didn't format them into a heading, so it looks like regular text. They can fix this by highlighting the subtitles, then click on the paragraph dropdown menu, and click heading.
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) ** The information under each section is appropriate, but I think that some sentences should be moved/deleted. In the Description section, the last sentence says, "This species typically has a diameter of about 2-3 inches and is adapted for life in rocky reef environments." The part that says, "... adapted for life in rocky reef environments," can be moved to the distribution and habitat section.
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) ** The author's writing style is simple and easy to understand. The only part that is hard to understand is the 2nd paragraph, but that was in the existing article, and was not written by the author.
 * 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) ** Although there is a references section, there are no sources linked at the end of each sentence.
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 17) ** Yes.
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 19) ** None of the sources are linked at the end of each sentence.
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 21) ** The author uses a good variety of sources from websites and a journal. The websites seem to be good quality because they are all from organizations and none of them are blogs/biased information.
 * 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) ** I think the article should be changed by adding headings to differentiate the paragraphs. I also think the author should double check and add a link to their sources after each sentence.
 * 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) ** The article needs a few edits to be ready for the world to see, for reasons listed above. I also think that the author should reread each sentence one more time to ensure that it is clear and concise.
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 28) The most important thing the author can improve on is the format, which includes headings and links to sources.
 * 29) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 30) N/A