User:Hop3005/Auriculella ambusta/Jacobkee Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Hop3005/Auriculella ambusta
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Auriculella ambusta

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? What impresses me is how many sources they have.
 * 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.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Yes it is correct.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Some of the words are different sizes and it seems a little off.
 * 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? Each statement except for the last one in the habitat section has a source.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? They are good sources with plenty of information.
 * 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? Make it more organized and add 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? Not quite because it needs more organizing and more information.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Add more information.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes I would like to have more sources like them.