User:Narcissusgasp/Auriculella perpusilla/Eldrenn Peer Review

General info
(Narcissusgasp)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Narcissusgasp/Auriculella perpusilla
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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) * I see that the author has what she is going to do with the article planned out and just needs to start adding information and sources.
 * 4) ** I've started to add quite a bit of information to really bulk up my article, I currently have a section or two finished with 1-2 more planned out.
 * 5) Check the main points of the article:
 * 6) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 9) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 10) * Author has not yet added information about the species.
 * 11) ** I've flushed out my species' anatomy a bit, but I'd like to have graphics, like a picture, to help the viewer visualize these traits.
 * 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?
 * 14) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 15) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 16) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 17) * Author has not yet added their resources.
 * 18) ** Sources have been added with proper citations.
 * 19) 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):
 * 20) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 21) * 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?
 * 22) * I recommend starting with the lead section and adding your headings as you do not need much information to complete them.
 * 23) ** I completely agree, having a good outline is the best way to create a satisfactory product.
 * 24) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing the author can do to improve their article is by finding credible resources so that they can start adding their information about the species
 * 25) This suggestion actually helped a lot, finding one source led me to another and another and so on and so forth!
 * 26) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I noticed that the author plans on talking about how their species adapted certain traits, which is something I could apply to my own article.
 * 27) I think that having this specific information inside of an encyclopedia adds to the cool factor and quality of the information presented to the reader.