User:Kylee Jane/Echinometra oblonga/Jg6446 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kylee Jane


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kylee%20Jane/Echinometra_oblonga?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template#&#x5B;1&#x5D;


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Echinometra oblonga

Peer Review
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.


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.). -- I think the article gives a good summary of information on each of the sections. There's not any unnecessary info. Thank you for saying that. I don't feel the necessity for fluff.
 * 2) Is there anything from your review that impressed you? -- Something that impressed me was the Habitat section because it's thorough and gives good information for the readers. Awesome! Thats good to know.
 * 3) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? -- A turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way was "Their spines are shorter and more blunt than other species of Echinometra." It's a good fact that differentiates this species from others. Thank you! I definitely have tried to find facts that make them different from other sea urchins.
 * 4) Check the sources:
 * 5) Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? -- Most of the sentences/statements include a number to at least one source at the end of it. But, the sentences aren't linked and the ones that are linked with either 1 or 2 lead to the same source. Yes! Thats because those sources that have a number but are not linked was for the rough draft article that we needed to connect our sources so I just created a key.
 * 6) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? -- The article does only make statements about the species the article is about, although some other species are mentioned because they're part of the facts. Yes, That is true.
 * 7) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number? -- There is a list of references, but it's not shown as a section because there's no heading for it. There's lists doesn't have the reflist command/tool but does have all 3 sources. Although, there's no link to the articles included. Yes i need to fix that.
 * 8) What is the quality of the sources? -- The sources seem reliable because they are from official websites or published works.
 * 9) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? -- I think the article is off to a good start with good info and sources. It seems to be unfinished so mainly I suggest to finish the draft as soon as you can. Make sure the sections are all there and filled in, like the Reproduction and References sections. Also, don't forget to link the sources. Yah I need to add the reproduction information and sources.
 * 10) Why would those changes be an improvement? -- It would be an improvement because the draft isn't done yet so the article has to add on some of the things I mentioned.
 * 11) 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? -- The article isn't ready for prime-time since the sections aren't all completed yet, and not all the sources are linked. So, just continue adding info and cite your statements and it should be ready.
 * 12) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -- I think the most important thing to do is just to finish the draft and add everything that is required.
 * 13) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? -- I noticed that they added a "Reproduction" section. I think this could be a good addition to my article because I do have some info on that for my species. Or just adding another section in general. Awesome!