User:Dkim3738/Pseudamiops diaphanes/Danziell Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (provide username)
 * Dkim3738
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Dkim3738/Pseudamiops diaphanes
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Pseudamiops diaphanes
 * Pseudamiops diaphanes

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 Something that was done well was the description part of the article, It was very specific and explained in detail about it's features. Thank you for the feedback, if there is further question on the details or anything please let me know. 
 * 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) Yes, I believe the article so far only goes over one species. I eventually plan on adding the genus or family when continuing my draft, thank you. 
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? The titles of the different sections in the article are relevant and the information under them are related to each sub topic
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?The titles of the different sections in the article are relevant and the information under them are related to each sub topic.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)The writing style is appropriate and seems professional and formal to me.
 * 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, each statement has text linked to one source with the small number
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? There is a reference list at the bottom with the little number
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? I believe the sources are good, they are from books.
 * 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):
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? I don't think any changes needs to be made to the article but something that could be done is to maybe expand on the distribution part I could not  find much information on distributions unfortunately. 
 * 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? Probably not yet, I think that It needs a bit more information in certain places like the distribution part as well as the classification part Thank you, I will add more information on distribution and classification 
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 17) * Something that could improve the article is to add in more information I will do that, thank you. 


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 2) * Something that I noticed from this article that I should have done in my own article is to use the little number to link to the reference I think I did that part wrong for mines.