User:Kylee Jane/Echinometra oblonga/Miyajo 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?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * 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.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I noticed the anatomy section and how it's formatted and the Hawaiian name in the lead section was also really good. Thank you!
 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.) I think the writing and formatting of the draft is really good, it sounds informational and is well worded.
 * 2) Thank you for that compliment! I do really try to make sure my work is well worded so that people can understand.
 * 3) Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Something that impressed me with the article was the information that they had and how the information was added in the article is clear and concise.
 * 4) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? A turn of phrase that described the species in a clear was was in the anatomy section where they mentioned what makes the oblong urchin different from other Echinometra.
 * 5) Thank you for saying that because it has honestly been very difficult trying to find sources that are solely about oblong sea urchins, so to be able to hear that someone was able to learn something new about the oblong sea urchin really makes me feel good.
 * 6) Check the sources:
 * 7) Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Yes, but the references list is a little messed up so the sources and the numbers do not correlate with the right sources so there's parentheses instead of the links. Yes. Thank you for reminding me of that. When I did my draft article and needed a rough draft resources links section, I only added new sources to that and did not include the existing ones I had, which did confuse it when I put it back into my sandbox draft article. I definitely need to fix that.
 * 8) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? I am unsure because there was no link for most of the sources. I am pretty sure my article only talks about oblong sea urchin, but maybe you read the question wrong haha.
 * 9) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number? There is a reference list at the bottom but not a link with the little numbers. Yes, I need to add my official bibliography to the sandbox draft.
 * 10) What is the quality of the sources? I think the one source that I could find was pretty good, it was not a blog, or any of those kinds of sources.
 * 11) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?I think I would just add more information to the article in general and fix the references section so it's linked correctly. I am definitely trying my best to find more information on this species but to my knowledge of what I could find even with the search finders provided on this class, it is hard to find more information on this species. But thank you for the motivation I will keep trying! And definitely when I am done writing this peer response I am going to fix at least that reference section.
 * 12) Why would those changes be an improvement? Those changes would be an improvement because it would be easier to find the sources instead of looking for it, and it would be good to add more if it's not too hard to find with good sources. Thats true.
 * 13) 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? I think improving the article a bit more would be better, and using the reflist formatting for the references. I will do that! Thank you.
 * 14) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing to improve the article is fixing the reference section.