User:JaylenJ808/Isognomon californicus/Btarumot Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (provide username) JaylenJ808
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:JaylenJ808/Isognomon californicus
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * User:JaylenJ808/Isognomon californicus
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * User:JaylenJ808/Isognomon californicus

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 introduction was well written but it needed more information to have a complete article/draft.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Yes, Isognomon californicus is named after California which I find interesting.
 * 3) Check the main points of the article:
 * 4) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) It needs more information regarding the topic,
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Yes some of the information is appropriate
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, the writing style and language are appropriate but it needs more information.
 * 8) Check the sources:
 * 9) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? The first paragraph has at least one source in the reference.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes like the introduction it has (1)
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? For resources 2 and 5, maybe it needs the link to the articles so it's easier to find.
 * 13) Give some suggestions on how to improve the article (think of anything that could be explained in more detail or with more clarity or any issues addressed in the questions above):
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Add more information and use the samples that the professor provided as an example for the starting prompts. Add more paragraphs about this topic.
 * 15) * 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? No not yet like what I mentioned above, it needs more paragraphs and information. Add more information about the scientific classification.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Add more paragraphs, fix the resources, add more words, add more body paragraphs, and be interested in the topic.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? No, because my article is about snails and this article is about shells.