User:CMLCC2003/Carpilius convexus/Jessicacezar Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) CMLCC2003


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CMLCC2003/Carpilius_convexus?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Carpilius convexus

Peer Review
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.


 * 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 was impressed by the amount of information added to the article. Everything is very organized and well written. (Response: Thank you, I took time to separate them into different headings.)
 * 3) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? I think the habitat section is well described. (Response: Thanks, I definitely believe that part is the most detailed.)
 * 4) Check the sources:
 * 5) 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 not linked to a little number but there are many sources at the bottom of the page (Response: Yes, I need to do this.)
 * 6) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? Yes I
 * 7) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number? There are numbers, just not linked in the article yet
 * 8) What is the quality of the sources? I would say that these sources are reliable and informative (Response: Thanks, I searched all over google to find them. :D)
 * 9) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?
 * 10) Why would those changes be an improvement? I think that this article doesn't need much changes. It really only needs to add the citations for the sources
 * 11) 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 would say it is pretty much ready for the most part (Thanks!)
 * 12) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Just to add the sources to the article
 * 13) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The author did a good job of correctly citing their sources at the end of their page. That is something I still have to do for my article (Thank you, very important thing!)