User:Titao777/Halimeda discoidea/Jahjah2321 Peer Review

General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Im peer reviewing Titao777's article


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Titao777/Halimeda_discoidea?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Titao777/Halimeda_discoidea?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

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) This article was really good at separating the different sections and adding info into the appropriate sections.
 * 2) * I like the description of the habitat
 * 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)
 * 5) ** The article only discusses the species Halimeda discoidea.
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 7) ** the subtitles fo the sections are appropriate but there are some missing sections, like cultural uses
 * 8) ** Awesome, I will be adding that section!
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) ** the info in each section is appropriate.
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) ** the writing style is good.
 * 13) ** Thanks!
 * 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) ** No, the references are not linked
 * 17) ** Hmm weird, I gotta check that out they should have been.
 * 18) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 19) ** there is only one reference
 * 20) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 21) ** no
 * 22) ** Gotta fix that up then, could swear they were.
 * 23) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 24) ** the source they have looks good
 * 25) 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):
 * 26) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 27) ** I would suggest doing more research, adding to the sections, and getting more sources.
 * 28) * 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?
 * 29) ** No
 * 30) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 31) the most important thing is to get more sources and more info.
 * 32) I agree.
 * 33) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 34) linking the references to the info in the article.