User:MGlass75/Morula uva/Nariyah B. Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:MGlass75


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MGlass75/Morula_uva?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article
 * Morula uva

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!

' Thank you for the compliment!   Those sources with no numbers were previously there and I couldn't find what they were used for, while one was connected to a photo. I will be more attentive about that and link them to their sources and add the numbers.   I will change the sentences more to have it in my own words and understand it better at what I am typing into the sections of my species, thank you for the feedback. '
 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.) The article does a great job of providing information from reliable sources of the Morula uva species.
 * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Yes, I really liked the descriptions and their eating habits for this species because it seems like a unique species to learn about.
 * 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) Yes, this article only discusses the species.
 * 3) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, each topic is appropriate in this article.
 * 4) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? After carefully reading each section and its information provided, each section has the correct information under it.
 * 5) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, the article has the appropriate writing style and language for a worldwide audience.
 * 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, the statements have a little number at the end of the sentences in the top corner.
 * 8) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, this article provides a reference list at the bottom of the article.
 * 9) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Some sources at the top do not have any numbers, but I see some that have little numbers.
 * What is the quality of the sources? I think the quality of the sources are good, just need to have each source with the little numbers to back up where you got your reputable sources from.
 * 1) 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): Some things I would say is to put the information in your own words and not plagiarize the whole text from the original article (copy and paste word for word) and make sure each source have the little number on it.
 * 2) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? I would say understand exactly what you are reading and put it into your own words.
 * 3) * 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 would say after making a few changes, it can be ready to view to the world on Wikipedia.
 * 4) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Put some of the information from the original article or source in their own words.
 * 5) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? No, I did not notice anything.