User:HKKM2023/Partulina porcellana/Hop3005 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Hop3005


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:HKKM2023/Partulina porcellana
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Partulina porcellana
 * Partulina porcellana

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 the amazing species.

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.) The article does a good job of Explaining what the species is.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I was impressed with the fact that the author thought about saying how close to being endangered they are.
 * 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) This article mainly just discusses the main species.
 * 5) * Does mainly mean there's some parts of the article that seems off-topic? If so, please let me know.
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? They are appropriate but I think that the description paragraph should be put first.
 * 7) * That's a good point, thank you!
 * 8) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Nothing should be removed.
 * 9) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The writing style and language are appropriate.
 * 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? Yes it is.
 * 12) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes there is.
 * 13) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes.
 * 14) * What is the quality of the sources? They are well trusted sources.
 * 15) 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): I don't think too much needs to be changed but they should re arrange the order of some things.
 * 16) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? I don't think too much needs to be changed but they should re arrange the order of some things.
 * 17) * 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? The world is almost ready to see it and I don't think too much needs to be changed but they should re arrange the order of some things.
 * 18) **Thank you for your feedback. I will re-order the sections and probably put together the habitat and description sections.
 * 19) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?they should re arrange the order of some things.
 * 20) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes, I think I am going to see what the risk of my species endangerment is. I'm glad that you could find something to add to your Wikipedia article from mine. Good luck!
 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes, I think I am going to see what the risk of my species endangerment is. I'm glad that you could find something to add to your Wikipedia article from mine. Good luck!