User:Aaron Hinchman/Calcinus revi/TrevellP Peer Review

General info
(Aaron Hinchman)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Aaron Hinchman/Calcinus revi:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Calcinus revi:

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 did well on staying consistent with their species they are reviewing.
 * 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?

I did my best to find info only relating to my species.

Yes the article only discuss the species the article is about.
 * 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)
 * 3) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 4) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 5) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)

I had trouble finding info only relating to my species but will try to find more later.

The different sections are appropriate headers.

I was not sure about the headers but glad to know they work as they are currently.

'Something that should be moved is how 'they are completely harmless to humans' in the description. That type of information should be under a "lifestyle/ behaviour section.'

Noted, will move to appropriate section when possible.

The language could be more professional for world wide viewage.

I will do my best to fix the any inconsistencies with appropriate language.

Yes each statement in the text is linked to a source
 * 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?
 * 3) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 4) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 5) * What is the quality of the sources?

Good to know I did that correctly.

there is a reference list at the bottom however it's not in its's own section.

I will work on fixing this to be its own section, thanks for pointing this out.

the quality of the sources could be better, I believe two or 3 more sources can improve the article drastically.

I did have a bit of trouble finding sources because I did this so last minute; I will be finding more sources to use to improve the article.

To improve the article you should add more sections, more information, and more sources to your article.
 * 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):
 * 2) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 3) * 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?
 * 4) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 5) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

Noted, will update in the future with more sections, info per section, and sources used.

'also, keep your information consistent within each section and only information that connects to the section. This article is not yet ready for the world to see. The most important thing that you could add would be more information on your species. There is also a need to add a reference section by itself.'

'I’ll change the references section to be on its own in the future. Thanks for the feedback on my article; There are a lot of mistakes that I wouldn’t have noticed otherwise!'