User:Btarumot/Petaloconchus keenae/JaylenJ808 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * JaylenJ808
 * User:Btarumot/Petaloconchus keenae
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Petaloconchus keenae
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Petaloconchus keenae

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.) The article has a solid amount of straight forward information and is organized very well.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?                                                      I am impressed with the fact that the author was able to get that much infoirmation on this animal.
 * 3) Check the main points of the article:
 * 4) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) This article discusses other species in the family as well as the genus and family.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? The subtitles are appropriate.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? I don't believe that anything should be removed
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The information is very objective and the writing style is straight forward.
 * 8) Check the sources:
 * 9) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? There could be but I can't seem to find them.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? There is no reference list at the bottom.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? No.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 13) 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): Everything looks really good except I can't find a reference list.
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Everything looks really good except I can't find a reference list.
 * 15) * Is the article ready for prime-time and the world to see on Wikipedia? If not, how could Everything looks really good except I can't find a reference list. the author improve the article to be ready?
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I could do a lot of things that this author did like Categorize things different paragraphs.