User:Chelsieuti/Turbo sandwicensis/HolliSmith Peer Review

General info
(HolliSmith)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Reviewing Chelsieuti article on Turbo sandwicensis.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Chelsieuti/Turbo sandwicensis - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Turbo sandwicensis - Wikipedia

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!


 * 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 liked how you mentioned the differences between leeward and windward islands appearances.
 * 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) Other similar species are mentioned. I think the mention of T. argyrostomus makes sense since they resemble each other. but the mention of T. intercostalis seems a little unrelated.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? So far only one subtitle which looks correctly formatted.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? I think you could definitely split up the information info different sections, for example anatomy and habitat.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, it is very well written, but some of it sounds copy and pasted or "too scientific" instead of being described in simpler terms.
 * 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? There are a couple links after sentences, but they all return me to the article draft instead of a source.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, but again I wasnt able to find any of the sources as they all sent me back to the sandbox draft.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes, three sources are listed.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? From your writing it sounds like you found great sources, but I couldn't find them/access them from the sandbox draft.
 * 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? I think you should explain some scientific anatomy terms in simpler terms to make it more understandable for everyday readers. Or you could link the terms to other wikipedia articles instead. I also think it would be great to add pictures showing the different variabilities. One website that helped me find pictures under creative commons was eol.org. Heres the link for Turbo sandwicensis https://eol.org/pages/620051 Hope this helps!
 * 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? It has great and interesting information, just needs to be formatted and organized for the final version.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think organizing the information into different sections and making sure the reference links work.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I like how you described the shells color and anatomy in depth, it made me want to better describe the shells my assigned hermit crab most commonly lives in!