User:HolliSmith/Calcinus laurentae/Jasmynsc Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:HolliSmith/Calcinus laurentae - Wikipedia:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Calcinus laurentae - 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?
 * 3) ** Greatly structured, great information, and in text citations in the writing making this a very great article.
 * 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) ** Yes
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) ** Yes
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) ** Each piece of info is in the correct place.
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) * Yes, the article is written very well and informative.
 * 13) Check the sources:
 * 14) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 15) ** Yes
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 17) ** Yes
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 19) ** Yes
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 21) ** Great.
 * 22) 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):
 * 23) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 24) ** Maybe a little more information in the lead section.
 * 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) ** Yes, I feel this is a great, complete, and well written article that could be ready for prime-time.
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Just a little more information in the lead section.
 * 28) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? In text citations they did very well using them and I need to add them to mine.