User:Eldrenn/Laminella sanguinea/Pruselle Peer Review

General info
Eldrenn
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Eldrenn/Laminella sanguinea
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Laminella sanguinea

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?
 * 3) * The article does an excellent job of delivering a wealth of important information that will be useful to the reader, with phrases that are simple to understand and read. Relevant information is provided with topic-related titles to help the reader grasp the various facts presented. While reading, I felt like I learned a lot about the species because the writing was simple and they used trustworthy sources that others could rely on. Everything you need is in the article (except for a couple of aspects, which will be clarified later). Kudos to the author for taking the time to develop their draft!
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 9) * The article solely discusses facts regarding their species and nothing else that is irrelevant. Their subtitles for each section (lead section, categorization, description, distribution, and habitat) are all appropriate and necessary for adequately expanding the Wikipedia page. Regarding the information in each section, under classification, I believe that the second sentence that discusses the species' characteristics should be deleted because it discusses morphology, but I do not believe that a new section for its morphology is necessary because the structure of the species is universally known among other gastropods. Furthermore, the second sentence under distribution, which discusses the species' habitat in greater detail, should be moved to the section Habitat because it discusses where it lives precisely. Then, in the second sentence under Habitat, I believe the second statement discussing the species' conservation status should be moved to a new section called Conservation Status so that the author can elaborate on its status. Regarding the article's writing style and language, the author keeps it concise and neutral, with no prejudices or personal opinions. The content is accessible to everyone, although their writing style may be improved significantly. A large number of grammatical errors must be addressed before the work can be considered polished. I recommend that the author examine their phrases thoroughly to verify that the text is clear of such problems.
 * 10) Check the sources:
 * 11) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 12) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 13) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 14) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 15) * The fact that none of the sentences are connected to at least one source in the reference list is cause for concern. I suggest starting to link each sentence with a citation to demonstrate that the sentences are from a credible source. However, there is a reference list at the bottom that links each source to a functional website (no little numbers linked to sources). The sources are well-established and reputable, with no fraudulent ones. The sources come mainly from organizations, with one from the government, and each gives appropriate information about the species.
 * 16) 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):
 * 17) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 18) * 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?
 * 19) * To define the species' habitat, the author can be more precise about the type of tree it inhabits in the distribution section. But my key advice to the author is to check for many of the grammatical problems that I noticed while reading the article, to link each sentence to a source, and to link specific words that others may not be familiar with. The author presents a wealth of material gleaned from credible sources, but some of the phrases in particular sections are unnecessary and can be changed, as I indicated above. Also, in the lead section, it says, "The biology of Laminella sanguinea is poorly known. Like many other Hawaiian land snail species, few living specimens have been found in recent years," I don't think both of those phrases are required. Rather, the lead section should provide an outline of what the article will be about, thus including appropriate topics instead. As a result, the page is not ready for the world to view on Wikipedia, but they may enhance it by making numerous modifications that I mentioned and then proofreading the article again to ensure that all sections of the article are adequately covered.
 * 20) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most significant thing would probably be to correct the numerous grammatical problems that have occurred throughout the entire work. Because this is a Wikipedia page, there must be no grammatical problems so that readers may readily understand the content. I recommend rereading the entire article to spot any issues or running it through a grammatical error checker software like Grammarly.
 * 21) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The author included many more sections in the article, which helped me distinguish between the many types of material offered. However, I believe it is unnecessary to incorporate more sections in my paper because each section would only have one or two sentences, which would be cumbersome for readers. Overall, I did not find much in the article that I could use in my work.

=== '''I appreciate the time and effort you've put into reviewing my Wikipedia article. Your insights and constructive criticisms are incredibly helpful, guiding me to refine and clarify the presented information. I plan on addressing the points you have raised to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and neatness.''' ===