User:Kaytie.conselva/Antisabia imbricata/Trashedwaffles Peer Review

General info
Kaytie.conselva
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Kaytie.conselva/Antisabia imbricata
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Antisabia imbricata

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? I am impressed with the description of the species you've made.
 * 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) The species' family and genus is mentioned but not in great detail so it is fine.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, the sections are appropriate for the article.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? I think adjustments could be made in the morphology section because if I'm correct, morphology is referring to body parts and physical features of an animal rather than its family and genus. I'd suggest renaming that section to something more fitting.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, it's informative and not biased.
 * 8) Check the sources:
 * 9) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? The lead sentence does not have a source. The sentence under living environment does not have a source linked.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? Reliable
 * 13) 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):
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? As I said before, I'd suggest changing the morphology section title to something more fitting because describing the genus and family of the species is not considered morphology if I'm not mistaken. I'd also suggest adding a source link to the lead sentence and the sentence under living environment. As well as fixing the references list because it is repeated at the bottom.
 * 15) * 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? What is said in the lead sentence and morphology section is repeating itself, maybe change the lead sentence? I also noticed that you got rid of the what is in the original article to reword it. I'm not sure if that's allowed but so maybe it's something to look into. I'd also like to suggest adding definitions / links to words that may be unknown to a reader.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I'd say changing the morphology section.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Something I reviewed in this article that could be applicable to my own article would be an anatomy/morphology section. I didn't really describe the physical features of my species in my draft.