User:Hooter18/Mancinella armigera/Redgreenblue1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hooter18


 * 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?
 * 3) * The outline so far looks like it is setting up a good foundation for when you are finished. ok 
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 6) * Yes, the article discusses the species mentioned. ok 
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) * There aren't many subtitles to go off of but what is there so far is appropriate ok .
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) * The information is appropriate. ok 
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) * The writing style is correct and objective. ok 
 * 13) Check the sources:
 * 14) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 15) * Each statement or sentence in the text is linked with a source. ok 
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 17) * There is a reference list at the bottom. ok 
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 19) * Each source is linked with the a number. ok 
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 21) * the sources are scholarly. ok 
 * 22) 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):
 * 23) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 24) * Some more information will improve the article. ok 
 * 25) * 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?
 * 26) * This article, in my opinion, is not ready. ok 
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? the most important thing that the author can do to improve their article is to add more information. ok 
 * 28) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? definitely, I need to add numbers to my references. ok