User:MGlass75/Morula uva/Ztanaka Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) MGlass75


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MGlass75/Morula_uva?action=edit


 * 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!

'I am impressed by the fact they added all the sections the article was lacking. Original article only has one small section so it is nice to see all the new info. The vocabulary is impressive, many scientific words are used. The description section is very well done.'
 * 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?

''' Thank you for the compliment on the description section and my add on to the article. '''

''' Thank you, I also agree on this change as it should strictly talk about my species and nothing else. '''
 * 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)
 * The only thing that need to be changed is in the distribution section you add info that I think is unnecessary since it talks about all marine gastropods. I would remove that part and only add info about the snail your article is on.
 * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?

Lots of strong sources. 'I think the added info is well done, it just needs a little more. You could either add more sections or just elaborate on the ones there a little more. Maybe you could add a section about how they reproduce or if they are like endangered or something else.'
 * Yes
 * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * Information is in the right spots
 * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * Yes
 * 1) Check the sources:
 * 2) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 3) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 4) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 5) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 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):
 * 2) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 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 never thought about the reproduction on my species, so this is a good idea! Also, you are absolutely right about elaborating more with the sections and add more information, I just ran out of time. Thank you for your feedback.'''
 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Just keep on going, your draft pretty good already.
 * 2) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Adding the links connected to other species makes the article look more professional so I will do that too.