User:TrevellP/Spirobranchus corniculatus/Idk jonesken Peer Review

General info
trevellP
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TrevellP/Spirobranchus_corniculatus
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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!

''this article does so well in the structure of information. it is very straight forward and includes a lot of in depth information about their species.  yes! it is very well structured and everything was easy to navigate.  it does. it does include the genus and family once, but it primarily focuses on the worm.  the subtitles for the different sections are indeed appropriate.  nothing should be moved! everything correlates with what the subtitle says.  it is appropriate.  yes''
 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.)
 * 1) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * 1) Check the main points of the article:
 * 2) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 1) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 1) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 1) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 1) Check the sources:
 * 2) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?

yes
 * 1) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?

yes
 * 1) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?

''very good quality. ''
 * 1) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 1) 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):

''I don't suggest any changes.  I don't necessarily think it is prime time ready, but it is in a good state.  speak a bit more about the worm, and add in some pictures.  I could definitely do this structure like this for my own article.
 * 1) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 1) * 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?
 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

(Trevell)

'''Thank you for the peer review I'm glad it seems i'm off to a great start, I do believe I should add some pictures to my wiki page as well I think it would go great as the way i describe it to be so vibrant. I will most likely add in some pictures when I next work on my page, Thank you.'''