User:Jasmynsc/Pseudoboletia indiana/Danica Que Peer Review

General info
Jasmynsc
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing.:User:Jasmynsc/Pseudoboletia indiana - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Pseudoboletia indiana - 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 species native to Hawaii and for the World to meet.

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) ** I was impressed by the description of colors that the urchin of this species has. Looking at its picture on the existing Wikipedia page was intriguing.
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 6) ** Yes.
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) ** Yes, the subtitles belong to the information following it. However, the author can highlight each subtitle and turn it into a heading to separate it from the smaller text.
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) ** None. All of the information is underneath the right section.
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) ** The writing style and language is clear and somewhat easy to understand. However, some sentences need proper punctuation to make it easier to read. Putting it into Grammarly.com may help. That is one source the I personally use to edit my work.
 * 13) Check the sources:
 * 14) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 15) ** None of the sentences are linked with a source at the end, but this can be fixed by adding a citation at the end of each sentence.
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 17) ** Yes.
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 19) ** No. However, the author can fix the references list by formatting it correctly by making a references list that is properly cited.
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 21) ** The sources seem reliable, with all of them coming from websites. These websites are part of organizations that seem reliable to use, and none of the sources come from blogs or biased information.
 * 22) 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):
 * 23) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 24) ** Some things that can be improved is the format of the article. The author can format the sections into headings so that it looks like a professional Wikipedia article. The author can also make some changes to the references and its list, which are explained above.
 * 25) * 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?
 * 26) ** After making the edits mentioned above and checking it over one last time, the author's article should be ready for the world to see.
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 28) The most important things to improve is the formatting and sources. Other than that, the information seems clear and concise.
 * 29) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 30) N/A