User:Elewis3/Partulina proxima/Bnolan6! Peer Review

General info
Elewis3
 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Elewis3/Partulina proxima
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Partulina_proxima
 * Partulina_proxima

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? The first thing that caught my eye was the structure and format, this article is formatted very well and you can gather information quickly and easily due to this.
 * 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) The article discuses the species while also including information on the family and genus.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, the subtitles are well organized and easy to understand.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? I think the information under each section is in it's appropriate category
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Definitely need's a little more information in each sections but it is a good first draft
 * 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 are links but no little numbers
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? no
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? good quality, there are also some images to get a visual of the snail
 * 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): I think the article is in great format, just needs a little more information in each section and numbers for the links, other than that great work.
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Not many changes, just more information
 * 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 think the article is almost ready for prime time just some mistakes
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Give stable evidence and websites and provide lots of information The author could find more websites and more data on the snails to include in his article
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes, I definitely should add more information and origination to my article, which is what I've learned from this article