User:Robina jane/Littoraria pintado/KLeal14 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Robina Jane


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robina%20jane/Littoraria_pintado?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article
 * Littoraria pintado
 * Littoraria pintado

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) ** I like how there is a lot of detail in the article that Robina added compared to the current article
 * 4) ** thank you :)
 * 5) Check the main points of the article:
 * 6) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 7) ** yes the article does only discuss the species that the article is about and not the family
 * 8) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 9) ** There isn't ant subtitles for each section to help direct me to what topic I'm looking at
 * 10) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 11) ** Yes I think that the information under each section is appropriate
 * 12) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 13) ** I think the language of the article is appropriate
 * 14) Check the sources:
 * 15) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 16) ** each topic has a reference link at the bottom but with no little number with it
 * 17) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 18) ** yes there is a reference at the bottom of every topic
 * 19) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 20) ** No its not linked with a little number
 * 21) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 22) ** I think the quality of the source is good
 * 23) 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):
 * 24) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 25) ** I suggest adding topic headers to the top of each section just so the reader knows what each section is really about
 * 26) ** Thank you for your suggestion, will do that.
 * 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) ** No I don't think that the article is ready for prime-time just yet, the author could adjust a few things such as adding topic headers other than that I think the article is good
 * 29) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 30) Adding topic headers and the little number to the references
 * 31) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 32) I noticed that there are is a lot of good information that is added to the article and I believe I can add more details to my article as well