User:Parkerd8/Nerita picea/MGlass75 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)

Parkerd8


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Parkerd8/Nerita picea - Wikipedia 


 * Link to the current version of the article

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!

'''The article is formatted very well done and it is neatly organized. Same goes for the writing style, as it is kept as present tense and in a passive voice.''' '''The article only talks about their respected species with each of their information correctly placed in their sections. The writing style remains appropriate throughout the article.''' '''The sources look great as they go with their species and provide information that relates to it. Each sentence in the text has a linked source that connects with the reference list with the little number.''' 'I would capitalize the word "use" in the heading "Human use" to make it more appealing and get rid of the article in "The Nerita picea..." and any other locations. Other than that, the article is ready to be viewed by the world.'
 * 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?
 * 1) Check the main points of the article:
 * 2) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 3) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 4) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 5) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 1) Check the sources:
 * 2) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 3) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 4) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 5) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 1) 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):
 * 2) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 3) * 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?

Good catch. I didn't notice these issues. I believe that the author has nothing else to improve on besides what was mentioned previously, but what they could to make it better is by adding more information about their species.
 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I agree, more information is always better. After reviewing the article, I think having the pictures be placed in the draft would help visualize what the final draft should be like.
 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?