User:TrevellP/Spirobranchus corniculatus/Glydelc Peer Review

General info
(TrevellP)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:TrevellP/Spirobranchus corniculatus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Spirobranchus corniculatus

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 species native to Hawaii and for the World to meet.

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) * This article is very impressive it's given me enough information to have a better understanding of the species and has given me the sources to understand where and which sources he used to gather the information and what impressed me is the understanding of the color it emanates and the way the species reproduces is quite unique might I say this is something that I found really interesting and very informative.
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 6) * Yes, indeed this article does in fact discuss the specific species/ what's its known as and talked about which family it originated from.
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) * The subtitles are very appropriate and professional. It has some uniformity, all informations provided are divided. Provided a lead section.
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) * Biology and Description section should be combined as one instead.
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) * The writing prompt for this article is great very informative and easy to understand should be great to published to the worldwide net.
 * 13) Check the sources:
 * 14) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 15) * Each statement has a linked source and number referring to it cited source of information.
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 17) * There indeed is a reference source at the bottom of the article but check on your cited sources because it says "check date values". I believe there's some errors as you were citing it.
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 19) * Each cited sources has a number linked to them by a little number. Every sentences are linked to a sources that is provided on the reference section.
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 21) * All the cited sources the author has provided are reliable and very informative sources and one of it is from a very prestigious college.
 * 22) 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):
 * 23) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 24) * My recommendation are add a photo of the species and add more details on the distribution/habit section like the geographic.
 * 25) * 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?
 * 26) * Yes this article is ready for it to be published for the worldwide net any reader reading the article will gather very useful information and will be able to understand the species a lot better.
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?                                                             Discuss the habit of the species in more detail and add a photo of the species
 * 28) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?                             Add more interesting information of my species and some amazing thing they could do and if you can find the human use and significance of it.

' (Trevell) Thank you for the peer review I appreciate your utmost honesty. It hadn't crossed my mind that biology and descriptions could basically be under the same category, I will make sure I update my headers when I work on my page next time. Also, I was not sure about If i cited my sources correctly so thank you for clarifying. The pictures are indeed handy and I will make sure to add that as well. I also agree with you about the geographic of the species as I have not added that information thank you for the opener. '