User:KOSMiKiNG/Brissus latecarinatus/Kianacac Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:KOSMiKiNG/Brissus latecarinatus:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Brissus latecarinatus

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!

RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW.
 * 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? The inclusion of detailed information on the species' distribution, life cycle, and behavior impressed me, as it offers a well-rounded understanding of Brissus latecarinatus.
 * 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)
 * 5) * yes
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 7) * yes
 * 8) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 9) * The information under each section seems appropriate, providing relevant details abut the species without straying off-topic.
 * 10) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 11) * The writing style and language of the article are concise and objective, suitable for a worldwide audience seeking factual information about the species.
 * 12) Check the sources:
 * 13) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 14) * yes
 * 15) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 16) * yes
 * 17) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 18) * yes
 * 19) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 20) * Sources seem reputable, seems like a reliable source that has trusting information on their species.
 * 21) 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):
 * 22) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 23) * Provide more detail on the specific behaviors of its species such as the feeding habits and interactions with other organisms in its habitat.
 * 24) * 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?
 * 25) * The article is informative and well-structured but could benefit from additional elaboration on certain aspects to provide a more comprehensive understanding on the Brissus latecarinatus.
 * 26) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing the author could do to improve the information about their species, elaborating more on the details.
 * 27) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Adding the little numbers that are linked to my sources.

''Thanks for the review I plan to researtch and learn more about their behaviors and feeding habits to add as much information as I can to the article. I also plan to figure out how to add the taxonomy box so that I don't have to have a whole section dedicated to that. I would also like to find some pictures to add to the article as well. It also would help if I find more reputable sources to draw my information from.''