User:Redgreenblue1/Cellana talcosa/Ztanaka Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Redgreenblue1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Redgreenblue1/Cellana talcosa


 * Link to the current version of the article
 * Cellana talcosa

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!

You've done well at lengthening the article because before it was very small. Your article are good and will be beneficial to the article. Your planned sections are great and when finished will form a informational article. Adding a section about conservation is a good idea.
 * 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?

I agree that a section of conservation will be beneficial so i added one, thank you. 'Again the teacher already wrote about this, but you have to make sure you are not directly quoting the articles. You can go over this lesson: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/plagiarism It talks about how you should not quote but should write all in your own words with your own understanding of the topic. But other than that just keep writing your article will be good :)' i have corrected this, thank 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)
 * Yes
 * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * Yes the planned sections are all important
 * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * The teacher already wrote about this in your sandbox, but the lead should short and all the other info can be made into another section. Much of the writing from the lead could be made into a Description section.
 * I made a coorection and made the lead short and moved the information to the appropriate sections.
 * 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) No they are not. At the top of the editing page click on the button that looks like " using the cite button you can paste in a website or book and it will create a citation for you.          A citation will look like this --> citations have been fixed, thank you for this help.
 * 4) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 5) There is but it I don't think it is done the right way. After making citations, click on -insert  -more-  reference list. It will create a reference list for you using the articles that you cite with the citation button. This lesson explains it better: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/sources  i have corrected the citation list, thank you.
 * 6) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 7) The sources are good.
 * 8) 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):
 * 9) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 10) * 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?
 * 11) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 12) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?