User:Cachola9/Holothuria flavomaculata/A.abegail16 Peer Review

General info
Cachola9
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cachola9/Holothuria flavomaculata
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Holothuria flavomaculata
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Holothuria flavomaculata
 * Holothuria flavomaculata

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!

The author of the draft did an excellent job of presenting the information in an organized and easy-to-follow manner. The presence of subtitles also made it much easier to navigate through the content. I liked how the existed article provided a picture. It is also commendable that the content included in the article is properly cited in the reference box. 'Thank you for your comment. - Jake' The article briefly mentioned the family and genus of a species without delving into further detail. However, the author used subtitles effectively to differentiate between different sections, and the contextual information was appropriately dispersed throughout the piece. I suggest placing the 'observation' context after the 'habitat' section for better clarity. Overall, the writing style is concise and suitable for a global audience. The author also successfully maintained a formal tone while using easily comprehensible language. 'Thank you for your suggestion. I will definitely switch up those sections. - Jake' The author has successfully linked each statement in the draft to the appropriate and credible sources. The reference list is also present in the article. Every source is linked with a little number, which makes it easy to verify the information. Overall, the author has done an excellent job of citing their sources and ensuring that the information presented is accurate and reliable. My suggestion would be for the author to consider reusing references to avoid any repetition in the reference list. Additionally, it might be beneficial for the author to add more substantial information, such as a few more sentences in each section. I would also recommend finding more credible sources. It appears that some additional effort may be required before the content can be made public. Nonetheless, I do believe that the author has done a commendable job and succeeded in adding more relevant information about the species. 'I agree, I do need more sources. The overuse of that particular source is the most informative source that I could find on that species. I’m also using that source the base for future supporting facts. - Jake' The author should invest a little more time and effort into finding credible sources, collecting information, and paraphrasing it effectively. And, fixing the reference list is another factor that can help improve the article. 'I agree, I do need more sources. - Jake' I did not notice anything about the article I reviewed that could apply to my own 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?
 * 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)
 * 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?
 * 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?'
 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?