User:Jaeden D/Cerithium zebrum/NoahKealii Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jaeden D


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jaeden%20D/Cerithium_zebrum?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article
 * Cerithium zebrum

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.) The article is good at being neutral while providing an in-depth overview of the species. I also appreciated that the original bulleted format of the "Distribution" section of the original article was kept and improved upon. Thank you for your much-appreciated feedback and for taking the time to fully read my article.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * 3) ** I like how Jayden's article has more detail than the current article
 * 4) ** It was my ideal plan on expanding more on the article because the current article didn't have that much information on the species.
 * 5) Check the main points of the article:
 * 6) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 7) ** yes the article does only discuss the species that the article is about and not the family
 * 8) ** I did my best to find the right information that mainly focuses on my species without discussing about the family.
 * 9) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 10) ** Yes, it helps me directly to what topic I am looking for
 * 11) ** Organization for myself was key to making things easier for readers to find the information they are looking for without having to look all over the place.
 * 12) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 13) ** Yes, I think the information under each section each appropriate
 * 14) ** Making the details for each section appropriate was difficult but it's great to hear they fit.
 * 15) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 16) ** Yes, the language of the article is appropriate
 * 17) ** I tried to listen to what the professor told me to streamline my sentences making them simpler for the reader to read.
 * 18) Check the sources:
 * 19) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 20) ** there is but not every statement
 * 21) ** I am currently having trouble linking each of the statements to my sources because for some reason they won't automatically apply them when I copy and paste the link into the citation tab.
 * 22) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 23) ** yes there is a reference at the bottom
 * 24) ** I made sure to follow the outline of every other Wikipedia since most references are at the bottom even in essays when they have a work cited page.
 * 25) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 26) ** yes, I think that is the from the current article
 * 27) ** My article sources do have the little numbers next to them but some of my other references don't have numbers next to them which I will fix.
 * 28) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 29) ** The quality of the article is good
 * 30) ** Finding the right sources was difficult but it's great to hear the quality of my sources is good.
 * 31) 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):
 * 32) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 33) ** maybe add the reference list with a little number
 * 34) ** I will do that when I next edit my article because it is something I need to change.
 * 35) * 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?
 * 36) ** no, just need to add some more detail and fix the reference with the little number, but the article is good!
 * 37) ** I feel like my article isn't ready for prime-time as well but the fixes are easy which makes me feel confident in time it will be ready.
 * 38) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? - Adding the little number for the reference. I think so as well since it is the biggest thing to add to my references.
 * 39) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I noticed that the article has a lot of good information, and I believe I can add more details to my article as well. I believe your article will turn out great with the given time you will be able to add or fix it in no time so it will be ready to be published for the world.