User:Rcinfowikirc/Laminella venusta/Slhight Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (provide username) Rcinfowikirc
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Rcinfowikirc/Laminella venusta
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * 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!


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.) I think the writing of the information is great as they are full sentences that help in making the information better to interpret.  Thank you
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * 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, especially in the description of the species
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Yes, everything is in appropriate placements.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes
 * 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
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The sources all look reliable, 4 and 6 are the same references That was a good point. I kept citation 4.
 * 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):
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Review the references and follow the suggestions of the strikethrough made I reviewed the references. I also deleted what was in the strikethroughs.
 * 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, after fixing the minor mistake. The information is well, you can maybe separate the distribution and habitat but it is not needed. I made adjustments to my article. I decided to keep Distribution and Habitat as one section.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Delete either reference 4 or 6 I deleted reference 6.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes, in the way the information was worded and how they had incorporated each reference throughout the draft.  Thank you for the feedback. I made the corrections you suggested.