User:Amenelogoleo/Echinostrephus aciculatus/Glydelc Peer Review

General info
(Amenelogoleo)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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) * The article does very well in so describing the many sizes and colors of the species of urchins (Echinostrephus aciculatus) to be exact. It is very descripted unto informing the many locations it in habits and may preside in the ocean varying the depths it can reach to the most interesting is the variety of sizes it can become to becoming to the length of a pencil to a ball shape size. to the comparison of the original article this article is more descriptive and very informative
 * 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) * The topic of discussion in the article is the urchin called Echinostrepihus aciculatus the only information i have gather is of the species of Echinostrepihus aciculatus it does not sway into the other species of urchins
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) * The subtitles are deemed very good and appropriate for their sections I recommend to keep as is unless new information is acquired.
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) * Every section I have read so far is good it fit into its topic of discussion it was clear and understanding.
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) * The writing prompt is acceptable and appropriate for it to be published onto the worldwide audience.
 * 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) * None of the sentences or statements are linked to any of the sources that are posted at the bottom of the article.
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 17) * There indeed is a reference list at the bottom the article to provide information and resources to back up the claims.
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 19) *None of sources are linked with number connecting it to the reference. Did not use the "cite" function.
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 21) * All sources provided for this specific topic are of good quality and authenticity all proven to reliable sources of information. Make sure you cite all your sources in your reference section.
 * 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) * One recommendation I like to see is a photo of the species to give the viewer an insight of what the species looks like and if possible, try to gather more information to what it provides to the ecosystem.
 * 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 isn't really ready for the world to see on Wikipedia because all the informations he provided that he used for his sources are not cited. It's not linked to the reference. Make sure that your lead section is all the way in the top above the description headline. I believe you have two lead section, one is from the regular article. Some of your informations about your species is from the regular article. You have to highlight what's already in the article and tell us what changes have been made.
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?                                                                    The important thing the author could have done better is cite his sources better when stating them it would have help better understand which sources he used and where he got it from instead of trying to figure out from which source he acquired it from. Whenever you mention your species name just make sure it's in italic. Also make sure your headings are not specified in your outline. By doing that you click on the "Paragraph" and click on the heading.
 * 28) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?                                  Yes, indeed adding a photo will help the reader understand and visualize the species they are learning/gathering information from.