User:Btarumot/Petaloconchus keenae/Ncorpuz4 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (ncorpuz4)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Btarumot/Petaloconchus_keenae&action=edit
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Petaloconchus keenae
 * 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.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I think there should be more info about the Petaloconchus keenae and a few more sections, but I don't see any close paraphrasing.
 * 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) It only talks about what the Petaloconchus keenae is, so no discussions.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? There's only one section
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? There's only one information and no other sections.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The writing and style and language are appropriate, but the info is way too short.
 * 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? Yes
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? Informative
 * 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): The article needed more info to make this stronger.
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Add more information about the Petaloconchus keenae.
 * 15) * 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? I don't think this article is ready for prime-time because the article needs more meat on the bone.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?  As I mentioned, it wouldn't been better to add more info about the Petaloconchus keenae and a bit more sections.  I felt the article could've been a lot stronger if had more information about the Petaloconchus keenae.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?  There's no plagiarism.