User:Jahjah2321/Turbinaria ornata/Mlum6 Peer Review

General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jahjah2321


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jahjah2321/Turbinaria ornata
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Turbinaria ornata

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.) [ANSWER: article is well written, clear and straight to the point]
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? [ANSWER: i really liked the subtitles and how everything was separated]
 * 3) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? [ANSWER: i think the whole article was very clear and concise the whole time]
 * 4) * Thankyou, I tried to make the information easy to follow.
 * 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) [ANSWER: yes, it only talks about the species]
 * 7) * Yes
 * 8) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? [ANSWER: yes]
 * 9) * yes
 * 10) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? [ANSWER: i think the part where they can alter their morphology like having air bladders should be moved to description instead]
 * 11) * I like this point, I will be writing a description of the species
 * 12) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) [ANSWER: yes, very clear and concise]
 * 13) * yes
 * 14) Check the sources:
 * 15) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? [ANSWER: no]
 * 16) * no this needs to be added
 * 17) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? [ANSWER: yes]
 * 18) * yes
 * 19) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? [ANSWER: no, no links to numbers]
 * 20) * no this needs to be added
 * 21) * What is the quality of the sources? [ANSWER: very good, they all look like research journals of some kind]
 * 22) * Good quality of sources
 * 23) 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):
 * 24) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? [ANSWER: i think finishing up the information and linking sources]
 * 25) * I agree with this statement above
 * 26) * 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? [ANSWER: not yet, still needs to finish adding information under ecology and linking sources to sentences]
 * 27) * I agree with this as well
 * 28) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? [ANSWER: just finishing up on sources and information]
 * 29) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? [ANSWER: I noticed that this article always has t. ornata and sometimes in my article I forget to specify the seaweed. I may need to change that]