User:Kianacac/Aniculus hopperae/Kainoa Kaeha Peer Review

General info
Kianacac
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Kianacac/Aniculus hopperae
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Aniculus hopperae

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) * Your Lead paragraph is of course a massive step from the one provided. You put the information together very well in the overall introduction portion, given the information from the rest of the article as well as your sources.
 * 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) * Yes, this article is only discussing the species of Aniculus Hopperae.
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) * Yes
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Everything is where it should be. My only note is to add the template thingy called "Taxobox" which is what is shown on the current article, where you can add all the family species etc. taxonomy.
 * 10) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 11) * Yes, the writing style is objective, at no point do I think that its a "subjective" or opinionated.
 * 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? There's only some citations at the bottom, but they do match up.
 * 14) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 15) * Yes
 * 16) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 17) * Yes, but there is 1, and 2, and 1.
 * 18) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 19) * After a quick look, they do look like good, verifiable, professional sources.
 * 20) 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):
 * 21) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 22) * Just adding in the specific citations and what not. (it's okay, I saved all my citations for later cause I didn't want to get into it yet). My other suggestion previously mentioned was the addition of the "Taxobox" template, which was one of my favorite additions to my article, allowing me to have the taxonomy info in there rather than trying to list it.
 * 23) * 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?
 * 24) * Not quite there yet on formatting and citation wise. Good thing this is only our first draft!
 * 25) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 26) Citations, formating (like adding title styles from wikipedia articles) and Taxobox
 * 27) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 28) Yes like previously mentioned, I need to get to my citations too, and I think I need a little more wording but I'm struggling to make it in the objective writing style.