User:CanalesMar/Amastra variegata/Vealasko Peer Review

General info
CanalesMer
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:CanalesMar/Amastra variegata
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Amastra variegata

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!

Hi Marina!
 * 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) 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)
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 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?
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?


 * 1) I think you're on the right track with your first few sentences. Great job finding 5 sources.
 * 2) I believe changing the heading you currently have to "Distribution" would make it more clear to the reader what the sentences is referring to. Here is an example:

Distribution
....

'''3. You are missing a reference for your sentences, but because you have your 5 sources, you can easily just add it to the end of the sentence by clicking cite: reuse. You also incorrectly did your reference list. After you correctly cite your paraphrased sentences, you should be able to insert your reference list with all 5 sources.'''

'''4. I believe adding the headings of what you are able to find in your articles can give you an extra push to progressing on your draft. After reading your articles, this will make it easier to add your paraphrased sentences.'''

5. Overall adding more information would truly improve your article.

'''6. I don't think anything from your article is applicable to mine, however GOOD JOB! Keep up the great work.'''

Comments on peer review:

Thank you for your supportive review! I will take your comments and try to improve on my article. I like the points you made on the references. That's a great point, and I'll make sure to add that into my article.