User:Lyliahnlee90/Ophiocoma erinaceus/Aydenc2004 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lyliahnlee90


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lyliahnlee90/Ophiocoma_erinaceus
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocoma_erinaceus
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocoma_erinaceus

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) * The article provides basic information on the subject well in an organized manner. Understood.
 * 3) Check the main points of the article:
 * 4) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 5) ** The family and genus are mentioned, but nothing more than name reference. Understood.
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 7) ** Yes, they are simple and well organized. Understood.
 * 8) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 9) ** Nothing needs to be moved. Understood.
 * 10) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 11) ** Yes, the sentences are short and easy to follow for non-native English speakers. Understood.
 * 12) Check the sources:
 * 13) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 14) ** Not every single sentence, but all but one are. I believe I did cite every sentence with a number.
 * 15) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 16) ** Yes Understood.
 * 17) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 18) ** Yes Understood.
 * 19) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 20) ** These are quality sources, all of which are journal studies. Understood.
 * 21) 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):
 * 22) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 23) ** I would suggest adding more detail, especially in the habitat section. Understood, though it was a bit hard to find anything on the habitat of this species.
 * 24) * 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?
 * 25) ** I think it is ready, but more details could definitely be added. More specifics such as can it be found in the intertidal? Understood.
 * 26) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 27) Add specific details.
 * 28) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 29) Nothing specific.