User:Miyajo/Kauaʻi ʻamakihi/NoelaniV Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Miyajo


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Miyajo/Kauaʻi ʻamakihi - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Kauaʻi ʻamakihi - Wikipedia

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.)
 * 2) Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The information in each heading is straight to the point and did a good job of elaborating the different topics.
 * 3) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? I think where you wrote that the Kaua'i 'amakihi lets out a distinguished tweet when flying or feeding stood out to me in your draft. The anatomy section describes the bird in a clear way.
 * 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? No. The classification topic does not have any citations.
 * 6) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? The article mentions the Kau'i nukupu'u.
 * 7) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes.
 * 8) What is the quality of the sources? The quality of sources are good.
 * 9) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?
 * 10) Why would those changes be an improvement? The second sentence of the Lead was a bit confusing to me. Where you write "The species Hawaiian name it's associated with is Kihikihi, or kihi stems from the word amakihi," perhaps you could rephrase this to make it less confusing.
 * 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? Not exactly, you could add citations to the classification topic, and reference links to some of the Hawaiian words and locations in the habitat topic. Also, you might want to delete the Heading at the bottom below the references, that might have been a mistake.
 * 12) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Adding some more citations and reference links.
 * 13) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The simplicity and clarity (not being too wordy) is what I thought I could apply to my article.

'''Thanks for the feedback! I will add some sources and reference links to my article, and try to reword the lead section. Finding sources was the hardest part of this for me so I will have to improve on that a little more. -Miya'''