User:Liezel Lagat/Dictyosphaeria cavernosa/Kpaste Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)

Liezel Lagat


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: :Editing User:Liezel Lagat/Dictyosphaeria cavernosa - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Dictyosphaeria cavernosa - Wikipedia
 * Dictyosphaeria cavernosa - 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!

'''The article effectively describes what the organism is and where it is found. I am impressed by the author including the affects the algae has on the environment. It is a great start to building an article.'  Thank you, I appreciate you pointing this out.'' '''I would suggest including sources for some pieces of information. For example, the facts with dates.''' I think this article is not ready yet, but with some reorganization and citations, it will be.  '' Thank you, I will double check to see if my references match the information in my article.  'Definitely adding citations. Along with possibly reorganizing the text to fit in the right categories.''' I noticed the titles of the paragraphs, which is something I need to change about my own article.
 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * 1) Check the main points of the article:
 * 2) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) Mentions the family, but primarily talks about the species.   I will work on specifically going into the species and removing any unnecessary information.
 * 3) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? I feel that the origin section does not quite involve the origin of the species.  I will look into further improving this. Any suggestions on what I can add to improve this section?
 * 4) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? There are parts in the origin section that could be combined with the habitat section.   I will look into combining the necessary information together.
 * 5) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes.
 * 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? No. Will look into this part.
 * 8) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes.
 * 9) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? There are more sources in the reference list, than in the text.
 * 10) * What is the quality of the sources? The sources come from reputable sources. There is one that does not lead to any information.    Need to double check my sources. Thank you
 * 11) 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):
 * 12) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 1) * 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?
 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?