User:Jasmynsc/Pseudoboletia indiana/Idk jonesken Peer Review

General info
jasmynsc
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jasmynsc/Pseudoboletia_indiana
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:


 * 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 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!

''what this article does well is provide very basic information that is a great broad explanation. it's a perfect foundation to continue building on.''
 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.)

it's a very good starting point, and just having that lead already is great.
 * 1) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?

''yes! it discusses the more broad information about the pebble collector urchin.  yes, it's a good way for me to kind of understand what is being mentioned on about the urchin.''
 * 1) Check the main points of the article:
 * 2) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 1) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?

everything is placed correctly.
 * 1) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?

''it is very appropriate, complete and full sentences.  not necessarily. I see the references, just not the number.''
 * 1) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 1) Check the sources:
 * 2) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?

yes there is with 4 references.
 * 1) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?

no they are not.
 * 1) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?

most of them come from very reliable sources.
 * 1) * What is the quality of the sources?


 * 1) 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):

''I wouldn't say changes, just that the citations need to be in place as well as just a bit more information added on as well.  it is not ready. they could improve by putting more information and giving the sentences they have written down citations.  add more information.  yes, the subtitles. ''
 * 1) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 1) * 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?
 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?