User:Esjohnso2022/Limonia hardyana/Sriracha0414 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Username: Esjohnso2022


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Esjohnso2022/Limonia_hardyana?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Limonia hardyana

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?
 * 3) ** There's nothing that caught my attention or impressed me.
 * 4) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way?
 * 5) ** The term "benthic-dwelling" helped describe the species clearly.
 * 6) Check the sources:
 * 7) Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 8) * Each statement or sentence is linked to at least one source in the reference list!
 * 9) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about?
 * 10) * I tried clicking the sources, but I can't open any of them, so I can't give my feedback on this question. I had no problem with the sources.
 * 11) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 12) * Yes, there's a reference list at the bottom. Each of the sources is linked with a little number.
 * 13) What is the quality of the sources?
 * 14) * I tried clicking the sources, but I can't open any of them, so I can't give my feedback on this question.
 * 15) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?
 * 16) * Fix the spelling changes & switch the "Discovery" and "Habitat" sections. I feel like the Discovery section should be first THEN the Habitat section afterward.. This suggestion makes perfect sense and I did switch them.
 * 17) *# Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 18) *## It would be an improvement because the mentioning would be in order, chronological order, it would make sense. And fixing the spelling errors would make it easier to understand and make the Wikipedia article more professional and it will help people believe that you know what you're talking about, that you did good research on the species.
 * 19) *# 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?
 * 20) *## No, I don't believe the article is ready for "prime-time" and for the world to see. I mentioned above some things that could help you improve your article.. I appreciate the feed back and hopefully soon it will be good to go.


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 2) * Add a bit more information about the species, people would like to know more about the species, maybe like reproduction, a more detailed description on the physical traits, and maybe the typical lifespan of the species. . It was hard to find the specific information on the species because it is believed to be extinct and I could not find research about my species in the last few years. It was believed that this species may be extinct.
 * 3) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 4) * I noticed that my Sandbox Draft doesn't have links to the sentences in there!