User:Max harding/Laminella sanguinea/Rcinfowikirc Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (Max harding)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Max harding/Laminella sanguinea
 * Link to the current version of the article: Laminella sanguinea
 * Link to the current version of the article: Laminella sanguinea
 * Link to the current version of the article: Laminella sanguinea

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? It added more information to the article and mentioned where the species is found specifically.
 * 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) No it also speaks about the species' three main predators.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Subtitles need to be added. I will work on adding those.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? The information needs to be categorized into sections. Example: Description, Distribution & Habitat, Human Use, etc. I will start to add the sections.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes the writing style is appropriate.
 * 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? The sentences have number citations but they are not linked. That is strange, I'll go back and fix my links.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? No I think all my links and citations got messed up somehow.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? No Italic text
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? Since the citations are not linked I could not view the source material.
 * 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): Link your citations to your sources. I will fix that, thank you.
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Title your sections and reorganize them. It currently looks as if it is just general information. Thank you for that input. 
 * 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? Your article is not ready yet. Add a reference list at the bottom and link your citations. Do not go in-depth about the predators. Write mostly about your species.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Organize your information into sections. Add a Description section about how Laminella sanguinea looks like. Add a few more sentences pertaining to your species. Thank you for the input.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? No