User:Ashok306/Opheodesoma spectabilis/Bdorado Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ashok306


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ashok306/Opheodesoma_spectabilis?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

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? The article is very bare, missing information like habitat, human use, and cultural significance.
 * 3) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? The article has a short paragraph the species physical features.
 * 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) Article talks about the species and it's physical features.
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Needs more subtitles and change Article body to description.
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? The information is in the right places but needs more added to it.
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The style and language is short in detail.
 * 9) Check the sources:
 * 10) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? The sentences are labeled with where they got their information.
 * 11) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? References are located at the bottom of the page but not linked properly to go to the sources.
 * 12) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? The source are numbered.
 * 13) * What is the quality of the sources? The first couple references doesn't the correct URL. The ones that do work seem reputable.
 * 14) 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):
 * 15) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? The article needs more information, it only has a description of the species and doesn't dive deeper in the species.
 * 16) * 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? The article is not ready and needs sections like habitat, usage, or cultural significance.
 * 17) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The article needs more information, it is very bare and doesn't say much about the species.
 * 18) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? After review, there isn't much that can be applicable to my own article.