User:Jazellel/Newcombia canaliculata/Max harding Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  Jazellel- Newcombia canaliculata
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jazellel/Newcombia_canaliculata
 * Link to the current version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jazellel/Newcombia_canaliculata
 * Link to the current version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jazellel/Newcombia_canaliculata
 * Link to the current version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jazellel/Newcombia_canaliculata

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? The article had a good description of the animal.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Yes, the basic information is good and well written.
 * 3) Check the main points of the article:
 * 4) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? Yes they do.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes they are.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? It is all in a good spot so far.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)The writing is appropriate and simple.
 * 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? Yes there are links after every sentence.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes there is a reference list as the bottom.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes each of those sources are linked with a little number.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The quality of the sources looked good to me.
 * 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):This is a good start, but you just need to add a little more information in each section and you will be set.
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?As stated previously, just more overall information in each section would be good for them.
 * 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?It is not ready yet. It could be ready if there was information in each section.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?The most important thing that they could do would just to focus on gathering all the information together, then later organizing and spreading it to the correct places of the article.
 * 17) Thank you I'm doing my best to find information online and in our libraries data base.
 * 18) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes, I noticed that they had good citations and sources. I could use their article as an example to improve my own citations for the sentences listed.