User:Miyajo/Kauaʻi ʻamakihi/Jg6446 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Miyajo


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miyajo/Kaua%CA%BBi_%CA%BBamakihi?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Kauaʻi ʻamakihi

Peer Review
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 the amazing species.


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.) -- The article looks very neat and organized, with all the sections being clear and easy to read.
 * 2) Is there anything from your review that impressed you? -- What impressed me was there was a good amount of information in each section. None were just one sentence long. I also like how you added the Conservation section.
 * 3) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? -- A turn of phrase that described the species clearly was "This species has a greenish-yellow with black lores and a large, sickle-shaped, down curved beak."
 * 4) Check the sources:
 * 5) Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? -- Yes, each statement is linked to at least one source in the reference.
 * 6) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? -- The article does only discuss the species the article is about. Although there are mentions of other species since they are part of the facts.
 * 7) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number? -- Yes, there is a reference list at the bottom with each source linked with a number.
 * 8) What is the quality of the sources? -- The sources seem reliable because they all are either published books and reports or official websites.
 * 9) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? -- The only changes I can think of would be to add more information that you find, though the article seems pretty filled out already. Other than that the article is great.
 * 10) Why would those changes be an improvement? -- The article would have more important info on the species and the article would look a little more filled out.
 * 11) 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? -- I'd say the article is just about ready for prime-time. More could be added, but it could definitely pass as a Wiki article.
 * 12) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -- The most important thing the author can do is to add more important information about the species that readers would want or need to know.
 * 13) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? -- One thing that I noticed was the Conservation section. I think this is a good addition to the article and something I could add to mine if I find the information in my sources.

'' Thanks for the feedback! Will try to add more information on the subject if finding more reliable and accessible sources to add to the reference list might be a little harder. Some reliable sources I had were books, but had to cut them out because it wasn't accessible so you couldn't check if it was reliable because of that. I think I got the conservation section from the LCC library and their website. They gave some tips and a basic format with some different headings you could write about on the different species if you were looking for more headings to write your species on! '' -Miya