User:Hooter18/Mancinella armigera/Parkerd8 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Parkerd8


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hooter18/Mancinella_armigera?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article
 * Mancinella armigera

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 amount of good information added. ok 
 * 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 ok 
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? The shell sub section might not be necessary because it is talked about in other sections.  ok 
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? I think the shell description can all be under description. ok 
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) No ok 
 * 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? No ok 
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes ok 
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes ok 
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? Good ok 
 * 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? Using more concise descriptive language, fixing punctuation, and fixing general editing. ok 
 * 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? No ok 
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Improve and cite the first sentence. Be careful about the "Shell" section, I'm concerned reading it that it is a direct quote or copy paste. The use of semi colons also doesn't seem appropriate here. ok 
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I could add the details about the shell section, but did not because it was almost impossible to rephrase without just copying. I'm thinking just adding a picture of the excerpt from the publication, so it can be read in it's original words. ok