User:Curtnyp/Achatinella livida/Vealasko Peer Review

General info
Curntyp
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Curtnyp/Achatinella livida
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Achatinella livida:

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 Curtny!
 * 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 really liked the way you paraphrased your sentences!
 * 2) You did a great job keeping on task by only discussing the species the article is about, correctly formatting your paragraphs under headings, and using appropriate language.
 * 3) You also successfully linked your sources with the little numbers. However you created your reference list wrong. Instead of manually numbering each source you just insert it, once you have cited from all 5 of your sources.
 * 4) I believe you are on the right track! You just need to find the time to find more sources that you can use to enhance your article. Another thing to keep in mind is to keep naming consistent (Ko'olau or Koolau)
 * 5) Instead of repeating the name of the mollusk you could put the first letter of the species with a period and the next word afterwards, so that its shorter. Example: A. livida
 * 6) I believe I can apply the way you formatted your description to my article. Good job!

Response to peer review:

Hi, Vealasko! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to give me feedback on my article. Your feedback will be incredibly helpful for me to improve my work. I will take your advice and manually create my reference list instead of simply inputting the link. Additionally, I will use "A. livida" instead of the entire name to make the article easier to read. I will also fix the naming inconsistencies that you pointed out. Thank you so much for your help! I wish you all the best with your draft.