User:Kianacac/Aniculus hopperae/Jasmynsc Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kianacac/Aniculus hopperae - Wikipedia:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Aniculus hopperae - 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) ** The structure of the article makes it easy to find information while the writing is very organized and well done. It uses the prior article very well in areas like the lead and distribution/habitat for info. Every sentence feels like I'm learning something new and always has new information making it very interesting each sentence.
 * 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) ** The entirety of the article only refers to the species though they mentioned the family it was very slight as it was just to inform the reader of the family of the species that's all. Each paragraph only discusses the species at hand and informs of said species only nothing else.
 * 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) ** I believe everything is put in the correct spots.
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) ** I believe this was written excellently and was very concise and straight forward never going off topic.
 * 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) ** No each sentence is not linked to a source via number.
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 17) ** Yes
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 19) ** No
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 21) ** Good I feel though there were only two they had a great amount of information and great details.
 * 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) ** If they added the numbers to link the statements and sentences to the articles it would be found in it would greatly enhance the article.
 * 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) ** I believe the information is great and the article is well written it just needs the source number links then it will be ready.
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Just adding the source number links.
 * 28) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Adding in text citations to my article.