User:Parkerd8/Nerita picea/Nariyah B. Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Parkerd8


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Parkerd8/Nerita_picea?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article
 * Nerita picea

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 structure of this article is  fairly good, except the references links at the bottom. I do not see any little numbers on the sources except one.  I'm not clear on what this means. I see all the citations and the links to where they are used.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I found it interesting in the human use section that you can make leis out of them and eat them raw or as a part of soup. Me too.
 * 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, the article only discusses about the individual species known as the Narita Picea.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, each subtitles are appropriate for the different sections.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? I think the information in each section is appropriate.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, the writing style is correct and is appropriate under each section. The only thing that needs capitalization is the species name in the second part of the scientific name. You only capitalize the genus for scientific names not the epithet.
 * 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? Yes, each sentence has a little number linked to that specific source.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is a reference list at the bottom of the article.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes, each source is provided with a number.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The quality of the article sources are good because each of them has a number that is a reputable source and provides information professionally.
 * 13) 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) You can add more information in the distribution section on where is the species located, how many are out there in the population, and more. That's a good idea. I'll have to research more and see if I can find some sources for that information.
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? I have no changes for this article.
 * 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? Yes, I would say this article is ready for the world to see on Wikipedia.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Maybe add more information and find more sources with interesting facts about the species. Will do.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? No, I did not notice any information about this article that I could use in mine.