User:NoahPras/Padina sanctae-crucis/Mlum6 Peer Review

General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

NoahPras


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:NoahPras/Padina sanctae-crucis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Padina sanctae-crucis

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.) [ANSWER: Very clear and concise writing. Straight to the point information. I like how there are smaller headers for each category (description, usage, etc.) Everything is easy to understand]
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? [ANSWER: I liked how clean and easy to navigate the article was]
 * 3) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? [ANSWER: I think all the writing seems to be clear and non-persuasive]
 * 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) [ANSWER: Yes, the article only talks about the species]
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? [ANSWER: yes]
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? [ANSWER: I think the part where it is found in rocky subtidal zones should be moved to location, location could also be changed to habitat]
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) [ANSWER: yes, the writing is clear and concise]
 * 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? [ANSWER: no, there are no links]
 * 11) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? [ANSWER: yes, but not linked]
 * 12) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? [ANSWER: no]
 * 13) * What is the quality of the sources? [ANSWER: all seem like good sources, unsure about the news article]
 * 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? [ANSWER: I think you may want to add more information to the article. You should also link your resources to your sentences]
 * 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? [ANSWER: not quite yet, more information is needed and maybe switching a couple sentences in the subtitles]
 * 17) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? [ANSWER: I think linking the resources and finding more information]
 * 18) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? [ANSWER: I think I may have added some information about the sargassum family instead of just the specific sargassum aquifolium species]