User:Slhight/Auriculella tenella/Max harding Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  Slhight - Auriculella tenella
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slhight/Auriculella_tenella
 * Link to the current version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auriculella_tenella
 * Link to the current version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auriculella_tenella
 * Link to the current version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auriculella_tenella

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? The article is shaped and formated very well.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Yes, the formatting is correct and it is something I can also work on.
 * 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, it is on topic.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes they are.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? It looks appropriate so far, to me.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, it is short right now, but they have the correct facts and information and do not ramble. Yes, I look forward to finding better sources to add on!
 * 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 they are.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes, they are linked with a little number.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? I checked them and they all are good sources for the species.
 * 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're doing very well on the article so far, its just there needs to be a little more information overall and you should be set.
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?If they keep up the formatting and good information that they already have so far, and just add onto it, then they are going to be well off. Thank you. I will work on making it a bit more specific and add more onto the info of the species since the points given were pretty general.
 * 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?They are almost ready, as previously mentioned they just need a little more information and it should be good.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?Keep up the good work with the formatting and stay simple and to the point. 
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?Yes I noticed how well they formatted everything and how they got clear cut sections on the animal they are writing for.