User:Ltlucas6/Amastra variegata/Slhight Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Ltlucas6
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Ltlucas6/Amastra variegata
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Link to the current version of the article:

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.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you
 * 3) * I think the article did well in staying straight to the point. the way information was given made it easier to obtain and understand the information. As well as how the page was organized with the different content headings to make the page easy to read through.
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) Y es
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, they are very helpful
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? No, each matches the content it's under
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes
 * 9) Check the sources:
 * 10) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Yes, but maybe try adding a bit more of the other references into the rest of the info if possible. Although, I know it might be difficult to find a really informative reference
 * 11) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 12) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 13) * What is the quality of the sources? Sources do look reliable
 * 14) 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):
 * 15) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 16) * 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?
 * 17) * Sure considering the wiki page there is currently doesn't have much information and that there are some points in the draft that aren't seen in the other.
 * 18) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Spread out more of the references
 * 19) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The content heading/ the structure. As well as how the information had been written out, as my sentences are a bit more blocky