User:JaylenJ808/Isognomon californicus/Giron-a-mo Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  JaylenJ808
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:JaylenJ808/Isognomon californicus - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Isognomon californicus - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Isognomon californicus - 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 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 article does well in referencing an article after every sentence providing great evidence.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The article I am reviewing has valid sources as well as a good starting point! There is a good overview of what Isognomon californicus is and the author can add on to the following.
 * 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)Yes
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? At the moment there are no sections created yet. ￼
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? As of right now there is only an overview and I think the overview could be left for now.
 * 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 of the article is appropriate and proper.
 * 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? No, that is one of the few things I would suggest adding in the overview. ￼
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is a clear reference list at the bottom of the page.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes, the sources listed are numbered and organized.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The sources provided look to be valid pieces of evidence and can be used in the article. ￼
 * 13) 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):
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? I would suggest adding sections and referencing a piece of evidence after every statement. That way the audience could easily refer back to where you go the information and verify your claims.
 * 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? Not quite, the author just needs to touch up on small details and just simply add more to the article. The author can create sections and jot more ideas down.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Referencing each claim. It shows that you have valid claims.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I noticed that the author had many sources. I think I could look to find more sources to further verify my ideas as well. ￼