User:WyattFranks/Menathais intermedia/Giron-a-mo Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  WyattFranks
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:WyattFranks/Menathais intermedia - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article: Menathais intermedia - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article: Menathais intermedia - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article: Menathais intermedia - 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.) The article has great points, however, there aren't much information in general. There is also only a couple references.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? WyattFranks has more information than the original article already and has more references as well. The article body section in the article describes the Menathais Intermedia well.
 * 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, the article stays on track and focuses on the right species.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? I would suggest renaming the sections sometime. Although, since it is a rough draft I figure the section names could be left alone for now. It may help the author organize his thoughts at this moment.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? There isn't much information on the page at the moment but I think the author could leave the information in the positions they are in right now. When the author comes up with more information and details, he/she could reorganize the article from there.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The article is somewhat appropriate. The tone could be fixed, making the article more proper. I've spotted small grammar and spelling issues that could easily be fixed. "Little" and "Information" in the lead section is spelled wrong, and in the third sentence in the article body section the word "the" is used twice back to back.
 * 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? No, there are given resources, but none are placed in between each sentence. ￼
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is a reference list at the bottom of the article.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes, each of these sources are linked with a little number.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? For the most part, each source looks to be good pieces of evidence. Source #3 is the only source that looks to be a little troublesome as it may be outdated.
 * 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):
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? The author could improve the article by fixing grammar and spelling issues, referencing each statement, and switching the tone.
 * 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? Not quite. Fixing the issues stated above would switch the article around a ton!
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I believe the most important thing the author could do to improve the article is switching the tone. Making the article more proper and professional will get the audience to trust your information and ideas.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I like the formatting of the references on the article. There are a couple sentences above each source that gives a gist of the piece of evidence. This may help the audience understand what each given source is about at a quick and easy glance.