User:Ryleebf/Hydroclathrus clathratus/Titao777 Peer Review

General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ryleebf


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ryleebf/Hydroclathrus clathratus - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hydroclathrus clathratus - Wikipedia

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? I was impressed with the amount of good quality information there was, as well as a nice structure.
 * 3) * Thank you!
 * 4) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? Yes, By describing the algas physical appearance, color, and texture it is easy for me to capture the image.
 * 5) * I'm glad that the descriptions helped.
 * 6) Check the main points of the article:
 * 7) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) yes.
 * 8) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? There are no subtitles yet.
 * 9) * I think the subtitles are the titles for the different sections. If I'm right, then there are subtitles.
 * 10) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? It is all well located.
 * 11) * Awesome!
 * 12) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) yes.
 * 13) * Yay, I tried my best.
 * 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? It is.
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes there is a reference list.
 * 17) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes.
 * 18) * What is the quality of the sources? They are very good quality.
 * 19) * Great!
 * 20) 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):
 * 21) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Maybe include some subtitles and keep on adding information.
 * 22) * I think the article had subtitles already. As for the information, I plan to keep adding when I find more sources.
 * 23) * 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? The article so far is good but could have some more information.
 * 24) * I agree, I'm having some trouble getting sources with new information, but when I find some, I will definitely be adding more info.
 * 25) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Search for more sources to make sure she doesn't miss anything.
 * 26) Agreed.
 * 27) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes, I could use a nicer reference list.
 * 28) Lol, glad you liked it!