User:Eldrenn/Laminella sanguinea/Sawqueenie 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
 * 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) ** I liked the really detailed description of the species, when I read it I can easily envision it in my mind.
 * 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) ** In the second sentence of the Classification section, that is more so of a general trait of the family rather then a specific trait of your species so I suggest you take it out.
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) ** Small suggestion! I think you did good on the Distribution and Habitat sections, I believe that they can be put together and can be under the heading "Distribution and Habitat"
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 11) Check the sources:
 * 12) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 13) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 14) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 15) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 16) * Good job on finding sources but each statement you have must be linked to your sources, you can do this by clicking the cite icon that looks like a quotation mark (They should have a little number on them once you do link it)
 * 17) 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):
 * 18) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 19) ** In the Description and Habitat sections the phrase "The land snail, Laminella sanguinea" was repeated, since it was already mentioned in the lead you don't have to repeat it, you can just put their name but overall great content.
 * 20) ** In the Classification section, the first sentence gives a great perspective in their taxonomy but is already stated in the already existing article on the left side where it goes into their genus and classifications.
 * 21) ** You can hyperlink more words like "rats" to a Wikipedia page
 * 22) ** There is just one small error in the sections Distribution and Habitat, still great content but just little things to just touch up on
 * 23) ** If you can, try find the scientific names of the leaves mentioned in the Distribution section
 * 24) ** If you mentioned the full name once in your article you can put the shortened version of your species just as long as it's not in the beginning of the sentence "L. sanguinea"
 * 25) * 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?
 * 26) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article
 * 27) * When typing your species' scientific name, make sure to put it in italics
 * 28) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

=== '' Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on my Wikipedia article. Your suggestions for improving the accuracy and comprehensiveness will allow me to improve on my work. I will be incorporating your suggestion of linking my sources after each statement and fixing up my information to enhance the articles quality. Once again, I appreciate your criticisms as it will contribute to improving the article's reliability. '' ===