User:Jacobk7/Turbinaria ornata/Lyliahnlee90 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jacobk7


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: :Editing User:Jacobk7/Turbinaria ornata - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Turbinaria ornata - Wikipedia
 * Turbinaria ornata - Wikipedia

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.) I think the author did well at providing more information about the species and using reliable sources to back up the information.  Thank you. I tried to use all of the resources that were provided in class because i knew they would be the most reliable.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I'm impressed by the amount of information that the author was able to find, especially with the distribution section. I was impressed myself with how much I actually contributed to the article.
 * 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
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) I think there could be more improvements into the draft to make it sound more cohesive and easier to follow along. Some sentences sound incomplete. Okay, thank you for the feedback. I will go back and reread and rewrite the parts that need to be fixed.
 * 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? Yes
 * 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? The author used many reliable sources. They used books, sources from the University of Hawaii, and journals/research as sources. Thank you! like I said I tried to use as much resources I could that were provided in class before I used things from other sources.
 * 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? I think the most the author could do is word the sentences to be clearer and more cohesive. As mentioned earlier, some sentences sound incomplete. The first half of the references list could be deleted, as the automatic-generated references list is already there. Okay, I will work on making it more clearer and cohesive. And yes I now realize that it will automatically create a reference section after I published the changes haha.
 * 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? Once the author revises the wording of some sentences and deletes the first half of the references list, I think it is ready to be shown on Wikipedia. Sounds good, thank you
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? As mentioned earlier, the wording of the sentences could be revised. Some sentences sound incomplete. Okay, I Will go back, reread and make necessary changes
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I believe I followed a similar format as this article, so there was not as much I could notice that I could already apply to my article. Cool !