User:CMLCC2003/Carpilius convexus/Kats50 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

CMLCC2003


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:CMLCC2003/Carpilius convexus


 * 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 like the way that you have set up your article in a organized way. I also like how it was written. (Response: Thank you, I tried to separate everything in their own headings.)
 * 3) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? " A Carpilius convexus coloration is a yellow-brown or red, with patches that are mainly brown, growing up to 25 cm." (Response: Yep, that's the sentence I woulda used too.)
 * 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? No, there isn't a link to each statement (Response: Yes, I need to work on adding reference links to each sentence.)
 * 6) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? Yes, the article is discussing only that specific species however there is a link to the larger species of it.
 * 7) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes the reference list is at the bottom and it is numbered
 * 8) What is the quality of the sources? The quality of the sources look good to me. (Response: Thanks, I scavenged the deepest depths of google to find them. :D)
 * 9) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?  Fix statements with reference by linking them with the number. (Response: Will do.)
 * 10) Why would those changes be an improvement? It will help the article to be more easier to see where the statement came from (Response: Understandable.)
 * 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? Yes, the article is ready after fixing the reference links with the statement (Response: Thank you!)
 * 12) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Adding more details if there are anymore (Response: Noted, though there is not much known about the species. Information I found seemed to source similar articles I used.)
 * 13) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? What would be applicable to my own article is the set up of how they have theirs set up in categories (Response: Thank you!)