User:Lyliahnlee90/Ophiocoma erinaceus/Liezel Lagat Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lyliahnlee90


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Lyliahnlee90/Ophiocoma erinaceus
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * 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) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I like how this person has a subtitle for the different sections in bold and they also have in links after their information to tell you where they found the information 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) Yes, they only talk about the specific species which is Ophicoma erinaceus. Understood.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, they have different subtitles for each section. Understood.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? The information used is okay to stay but I think they could add in the common name of the species in the description section. I could not find the common name of Ophicoma erinaceus in any sources while doing my research, so I think it does not have a common name.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, the language is appropriate. It is objective and non-biased. Understood.
 * 8) Check the sources:
 * 9) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Yes, each statement is linked to at least one source. Understood.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, this person has 5 references Understood.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes Understood.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The quality is good. I seen this person has a book and a journal included in their sources and it seems like all of their references are from an academic source. Understood.
 * 13) 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): I think they could elaborate more on how they are studying this species for anti-cancer. I would like to know more on how much research has been done and how far they have gone with production. Understood.
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? I would say being more elaborate on their statements. I think looking into reading more into depth about the anti-cancer research would help improve that section of this article. Understood.
 * 15) * 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 once this person adds in the common name for the species, one more picture, and an explanation on the anti-cancer research it will be ready to be published. I was not able to find a common name for this organism from the sources I've looked at, so I thought this species does not have a common name.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Having a little more information in each section instead of just one sentence. Two of their sections only include one sentence. I am having trouble finding any more specific information on this species from other reputable sources.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I think I could look into human uses for my species and see what humans are using my specific species for in their advantage.