User:Jazellel/Newcombia canaliculata/HKKM2023 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (provide username):
 * Jazellel
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Jazellel/Newcombia canaliculata
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Newcombia canaliculata

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.)
 * 2) *Is there anything from your review that impressed you?

After looking through the article, I noticed that the description of the species is well-written.

 * 1) Check the main points of the article:
 * 2) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 3) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 4) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 5) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)

==== The article does a good job of only focusing on the species specifically. The information under the different headings is appropriate and relevant. For the fourth point, I think that the word, "mesic," used in the Distribution & Habitat section can be changed to something more common so the audience doesn't have to search up what it means. If not, perhaps include some context clues so mesic can be understood as an environment with moisture. ==== Thank you I will definitely take that into consideration! Ill add some more context about mesic environments.
 * 1) Check the sources:
 * 2) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 3) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 4) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 5) * What is the quality of the sources?

==== The first reference leads to a page that says the taxon is out of scope. This might be the wrong link, but the right site. The other four sources seem to be from the same book, so I'd recommend compiling them into one resource and citing them wherever the book has been used throughout the page. This gets rid of the source being repeated four times in the reference list. On the other hand, the quality of the sources seem to be trustworthy and relevant to the topic. ====

Thank you very much this critique was very informative and helpful. I will rearrange my sources :)


 * 1) 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):
 * 2) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 3) * 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?
 * 4) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 5) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

==== I think that there can be more added to the article. Maybe some information about the snail's conservation status would be good information to add. Additionally, there are a few grammatical fixes that can be added throughout the article (main concern in the Distribution & Habitat section's second sentence). The biggest concern that I have as to what the author could do to improve their article is to include a lead, unless it's being kept the same as the lead in the current version of the article. For my article, I am also missing information in the Cultural Significance section. I'm looking for resources, but there seem to be no resources on the topic, so I might remove that section completey. ==== Thank you for your suggestions, yeah I'm trying my best to find articles...Hard when your snail was thought to be extinct. I'm currently trying to find books in our library system. I will adjust those grammatical errors and include a lead.