User:Mlum6/Sargassum aquifolium/Titao777 Peer Review

General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mlum6


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mlum6/Sargassum aquifolium - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hydroclathrus clathratus - Wikipedia

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 impressed me the great quality of his structure and the amount of information.
 * 3) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? Yes, good description is provided.
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) yes.
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, but there should be a title before the first subtitle.
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? It is good.
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) I believe so.
 * 9) Check the sources:
 * 10) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? yes.
 * 11) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? there is.
 * 12) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? yes.
 * 13) * What is the quality of the sources? They look appropriate.
 * 14) 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):
 * 15) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Just maybe bold the first title, it looks like a subtitle and the rest is all bold.
 * 16) * 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? Add images.
 * 17) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? probably work on its design.
 * 18) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes I need to find more information on the utility of my alga.