User:Makana V/Isognomon californicus/Cachola9 Peer Review

General info
Mānana V
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Makana V/Isognomon californicus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Isognomon californicus

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) 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) Yes, the article is about the species, but has a brief explanation of the family it originates from.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? There was no sections. Author only added to the original posted.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Writing style and language are academically displayed.
 * 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? Yes
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is a reference list on the bottom.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes, each source is linked with a number. In this case the number “1” was his source.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The source given was vague and information was limited. Maybe add some journal entries or books for sources.
 * 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? The article could be split into sub-categories which would make it easier. Description, ecology, human usage, etc.
 * 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? No, only because we’re in the building phase of our articles, therefore there’s more to be added on upcoming submissions.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? As of right now this a building phase on the article. Author could add human usage and fisheries to sustain the species.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The applicable thing I took from this article is adding what genus and family my own species comes from.