User:Goby26/Gracilaria coronopifolia/Ryleebf Peer Review

General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Goby26


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Goby26/Gracilaria coronopifolia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gracilaria coronopifolia

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?
 * 3) * I like the way that the article is structured well and that the writing is very concise. The way the described the algae was also very good and the details about its importance and connection to Hawaii was nice.
 * 4) * Thank you, I tried connecting it to Hawaii as much as possible.
 * 5) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way?
 * 6) * The comparison they made to a bush with no leaves helped me envision the algae's appearance more clearly.
 * 7) * I'm glad the description helped.
 * 8) Check the main points of the article:
 * 9) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 10) * Yes.
 * 11) * thumbs up
 * 12) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 13) * There are no subtitles or written out format.
 * 14) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 15) * They should divide the information into sections such as, "cultural significance and human use", "appearance", "distribution", etc.
 * 16) * I also realized this and have divided my article into sections adding a bit more detail to each.
 * 17) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 18) * I do think the writing style and language is appropriate. The information was objective and very to the point.
 * 19) * I am glad.
 * 20) Check the sources:
 * 21) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 22) * Yes.
 * 23) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 24) * Yes.
 * 25) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 26) * Yes.
 * 27) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 28) * They are all reputable and reliable sources.
 * 29) 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):
 * 30) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 31) * My main suggestion is to add subtitles to separate the information and make it a bit easier to read. I also would like to see a description of the habitat that it's found in and maybe even specific examples of its use in food. I think these things will improve the article by just adding that much more detail.
 * 32) * I was able to add the subtitles and also added specific food uses. It really helps improve the article, thank you for the suggestions.
 * 33) * 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?
 * 34) * Not quite, once again, subtitles need to be added and maybe a bit more info, but after that, I think it could be posted.
 * 35) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 36) Add subtitles.
 * 37) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 38) No, nothing new.