User:Kainoa Kaeha/Calcinus argus/TrevellP Peer Review

General info
(Kainoa Kaeha)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kainoa Kaeha/Calcinus argus:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Calcinus argus:

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!

'The article is structured very well, looking at the original article for your species it looks like information is non-existent so content wise it looks way better than before. I do believe you can add more points to your content.' The article only discuss the species the article is about mostly but subtle talk about other species in the same family.
 * 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?
 * 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 subtitles are definitely appropriate.

The information under each section is placed appropriately.

The writing style and language is concise and professional for a worldwide audience.

Each statement looks to be linked to a source however, it is not referenced correctly as the number next to your text are not highlighted blue.
 * 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?

'To do so after writing your sentence click the "Cite" section and either enter a link or ISBN code. your reference section will be completed for you to view it go to the 'Insert' tab on the top of the page and you should see "reference list". Plenty of sources and quality looks great.' 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): 'Changed that would improve the article would probably to add more sections. Honestly, the "significance" section doesn't pose any informations besides not having significance. The article is not yet ready for the world to see, To be ready more details on their "lifestyle" and behaviour should be added I feel to enhance your article. I like the scientific classification table on the side which I feel I should add as well.'
 * 1) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 2) * 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?
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?