User:Jahjah2321/Turbinaria ornata/Goby26 Peer Review

General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jahjah2321


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jahjah2321/Turbinaria_ornata?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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 human use section had lots of good information.
 * 4) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way?
 * 5) * No, this article is missing a general description of the species.
 * 6) Check the main points of the article:
 * 7) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 8) * Yes
 * 9) * yes
 * 10) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 11) * Yes
 * 12) * yes
 * 13) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 14) * I think the information is in the correct sections.
 * 15) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 16) * The style and language is adequate.
 * 17) * writing style is good
 * 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) * NO this needs to be added
 * 21) * No
 * 22) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 23) * Yes
 * 24) * yes
 * 25) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 26) * No
 * 27) * No this needs to be added
 * 28) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 29) * As far as I can tell the sources are okay.
 * 30) 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):
 * 31) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 32) * I think the article would definitely benefit from a brief description of the species before anything.
 * 33) * 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?
 * 34) * Almost, its just missing a couple key parts of an article. Adding information to the Description, Distribution & Habitat and ecology sections and adding that intro would drastically improve the article. It also needs citations.
 * 35) * I think adding a description portion and linking the sources to the text would make it ready for publishing.
 * 36) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? What I mentioned above ^
 * 37) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 38) Yes, I could use more information in my article.