User:Airahlonley/Sabia australis/Pruselle Peer Review

General info
Airahlonley
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Airahlonley/Sabia australis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sabia australis

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!

''Keisha's Response: After reading the peer review, I've seen some good suggestions. I will use what you said about moving stuff around and making some sentences that I said in the article more clear so people will be able to understand them more. As for the conservation status, I have not been able to find any sources that would help me with that information, but if I find anything, I will be sure to include that into my Wikipedia article. Additionally, I'll make sure to double check my grammar and use a software that can double check it for me as well. As for my lead section, I don't see anything wrong with it, but I'll see if there is anything I could add and/or fix. Thank you for peer reviewing my article!''
 * 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) * The author does an excellent job of presenting a wealth of information to the readers by citing trustworthy sources that readers can trust. Their content is pertinent to their species, and I am impressed with the amount of information offered, thus I believe I learned a lot about the species. Their material and structure are adequate for Wikipedia (although they could be improved), and their wording is simple enough for everyone to understand. I enjoyed how they connected a lot of difficult terminology to other pages to explain what they meant. Well done to the author for taking the time to write this article!
 * 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) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 9) * The article just explains what has to be discussed, without providing unneeded information about other topics. Their subtitles are relevant for each section (lead section, description, reproduction, diet, distribution, and habitat), all of which are required to fully expand the article. All of the information under each part is appropriate, and none should be relocated because it is all related to that section. However, under habitat, it mentions, "There are typically more than one of them on one host," and I believe the statement should be moved to reproduction because it appears to be more relevant in that area. In terms of writing style and language, they use simple words and provide facts neutrally and objectively, free of prejudices or personal opinions. Their discourse employs a professional vocabulary that is simple to understand. However, the fourth sentence under reproduction states, "For example, if it settles alone on a host, then it will quickly develop into a female, its male phase ranging from being very short to nonexistent, but if it settles next to a female, then it will develop into a male and live on the back of a female," which is a little confusing and can be worded more clearly or broken up into two sentences.
 * 10) Check the sources:
 * 11) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 12) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 13) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 14) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 15) * For the most part, each sentence in the text refers to at least one source from the reference list at the bottom. The reference list is connected with few numbers, and the sources are reputable and provide appropriate information about the species. The majority of the sources are from organizations, with one from a book and another from a Bishop Museum report. The sources would pass the CRAAP test, making them suitable for the article.
 * 16) 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):
 * 17) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 18) * 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?
 * 19) * The lead section should be expanded because I believe one sentence is insufficient to provide a brief description of the species. I recommend adding at least two more sentences that briefly outline the key themes that will be covered later. Though I did not notice any grammatical issues, I recommend rereading the article several times to verify that it is error-free and as professional as possible. It is also crucial to ensure that the terminology is as clear as possible, as some of the wording in the article is confusing or difficult to grasp. Additionally, the conservation status might be included if any information is found about it, providing readers with more information about its status and usefulness. All of these steps would ensure that the article is polished and ready for publishing. However, the page is not ready for the world to view on Wikipedia and might be enhanced using the advice I have provided. Once everything is done, I recommend rereading the article to check that everything is ready for publication.
 * 20) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Although I believe the article is well-written, the author should reread it several times to discover any grammatical flaws that may exist. Because there is so much information presented, they should make sure the terminology is as simple as feasible to understand. I recommend running the content via a software like Grammarly, which provides specific feedback on wording and language.
 * 21) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The primary point was that the author added more sections in their article to distinguish between the various types of material offered. This was useful, and I believe I could apply it to my own piece, but owing to a lack of information, I do not think I could expand it much more. I have provided as much information as possible using the sources I have. Overall, I didn't discover anything from the work that I could apply to mine because ours are so comparable (clear, concise, objective, includes sources, etc.).