User:Bnolan6!/Perdicella helena/HKKM2023 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?:
 * Bnolan6!
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Bnolan6!/Perdicella helena
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Perdicella helena

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.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?

The article does a good job covering different points of the species.
Thank you, after looking and observing other articles I will make sure to add more information.
 * 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'm not sure if the article only talks about the species. It's a bit confusing because the third sentence uses a different name (Aboreal pulmonate gastropod mollusks), which was never mentioned in the sentence before, which listed alternative names of the species. The article is not sectioned at all, so all of the information is jumbled together. The style of the writing is objective, but could be adjusted further as some sentences don't make sense or are missing a few words. ==== I appreciate the advice and will make sure to not only add more information but also organize the information so that its easier to read, take out some portions that don't seem to add up or make sense.
 * 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?

All of the resources are listed at the bottom and cited in the text. They all seem to be trustworthy cites.
''Thank you I appreciate it and will organize everything up. Thank you for the advice and now reviewing and seeing examples of the different articles I will make sure to reorganize and add more valid and important information.''
 * 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?


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 2) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?


 * The article is off to a good start, but definitely needs to be re-organized. I also suggest re-reading through the sentences and see what makes sense and what doesn't. I noticed that some sentences seem incomplete and that some clauses are put together when they do not have to be. The most important thing would be to separate the article into different sections so information is easier to find for readers. I liked the part of the article that listed common names, so I may add that to my own article if I can find any.