User:NoahPras/Padina sanctae-crucis/Ryleebf 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.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * 3) * It was nice that there were subtitles on the article and that it was appropriately divided.
 * 4) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way?
 * 5) * Not really.
 * 6) Check the main points of the article:
 * 7) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 8) * I believe so.
 * 9) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 10) * Yes.
 * 11) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 12) * No.
 * 13) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 14) * I think that the language and style is appropriate, but that maybe the formatting is a bit off, perhaps use paragraph form.
 * 15) Check the sources:
 * 16) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 17) * No.
 * 18) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 19) * Yes.
 * 20) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 21) * No.
 * 22) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 23) * All the sources are reliable and reputable, although the one from the Honolulu Advertiser might not be the best.
 * 24) 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):
 * 25) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 26) * If possible, I would like to see a little more detail about the physical description of the algae, as well as some words on the type of algae it is. Maybe a bit more detail regarding its human uses and maybe even the cultural significance, if there is any. I'd also like to know more about its distribution, is it endemic, native, or invasive, etc. Is there any specific food or food culture that it is a part of? Also don't forget to put those little numbers after all your sentences and to match them up with your reference sources.
 * 27) * 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?
 * 28) * I don't think so. I think it needs more detail overall and that the sources need to be properly cited and numbered.
 * 29) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 30) The most important thing would be to get those numbers and reference up and matching.
 * 31) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 32) Not anything new.