User:Ncorpuz4/Thylacodes variabilis/Btarumot Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (provide username) Ncorpuz4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ncorpuz4/Thylacodes variabilis
 * Link to the current version of the article: User:Ncorpuz4/Thylacodes variabilis
 * Link to the current version of the article: User:Ncorpuz4/Thylacodes variabilis
 * Link to the current version of the article: User:Ncorpuz4/Thylacodes variabilis

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.) The article has background information and is well written but provides more sentences like the sample draft the professor provided.  Yes, I should've added more info to writing stronger.  But I had a lot of work to deal with other classes because I didn't want to stress myself.  That's why my writing was a bit short.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Yes about the Thylacodes variabilis being shaped like hermit crabs and that Their shell shapes looked unusual.
 * 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
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? It needs more paragraphs and information about this topic like a topic headline. (see sample draft) . Like I said, I had a lot of work to deal with other classes. But hey, I'm not perfect.  I'll accept your criticism.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Yes label the paragraph that was there as background information and keep the information that was given about Thylacodes variabilis on Wikipedia.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, the writing style and language of the article are 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 reference is missing.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? No
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? No
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? No, reference is missing I thought I did.  Can you show how I did it wrong?  I'm pretty sure I did right.
 * 13) Give some suggestions on how to improve the article (think of anything that could be explained in more detail or with more clarity or any issues addressed in the questions above):
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Some changes that could be improved in the article is adding more paragraphs, adding more resources, and using it to make paragraph to make the article better.
 * 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 would say not yet because resources are missing and scientific information is missing too. It needs more paragraphs and information.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Provide more information about Thylacodes variabilis, add more paragraphs that has a topic like habitat, uses, background information and ect. (see sample of the draft).  What can I say, I'm not perfect.  Maybe I should take some practice on writing instead of being lazy.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes, Thylacodes variabilis and Petaloconchus keenae are related since they are about nails. And using this article's information would be applicable to my own article.