User:Narcissusgasp/Auriculella perpusilla/Tia UH Peer Review

General info
Narcissusgasp
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Narcissusgasp/Auriculella_perpusilla
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auriculella_perpusilla

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!

There's a lot of great information on the species' distribution, as well as their habitat!
 * 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) ** You found a lot of great information, and just from a few articles!
 * 4) ** Sections are clearly organized
 * 5) *Thank you! I strongly believe that organization is key to making something that fits both academic criteria and personal standards.
 * 1) Check the main points of the article:
 * 2) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) - Yes
 * 3) ** Agree, it's necessary to only talk about the species in a Wiki format.
 * 4) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? - Yes, though can add more (specified in suggestions)
 * 5) ** Good suggestions, thank you.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? - Yes
 * 7) ** Personally, I think that some information can be arranged to better fit the headers, but thank you, I'll keep it in consideration.
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) - Yes
 * 9) ** Thanks.
 * 10) Check the sources:
 * 11) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? - No
 * 12) ** This is genuinely something I'm quite confused on with the Wikipedia CMS-style citation format. I don't think it's necessary to have a citation per sentence, but if it's required then I'll oblige.
 * 13) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? - Yes
 * 14) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? - Yes
 * 15) * What is the quality of the sources? - Very high quality, each includes a lot of information on the species
 * 16) ** Thank you, it took quite a while to find valid sources for my species, given its cryptic nature.
 * 17) 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):
 * 18) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 19) * 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?
 * 20) ** Headings can be reworded to more specific things, I had a similar issue.
 * 21) *** Ex:'Distribution' to something like 'Distribution & Habitat'
 * 22) *** Ex: 'Anatomy' to something more general like 'Description', because this section talks more about details of it's shell and size rather than actual parts of it's body.
 * 23) ** Font style should be consistent. It would be great if you could make it all unbolded and unitalicized. Shortened name (A. perpusilla) can be used every time after you state it's full name in the beginning.
 * 24) ** '''Missing citation after every sentence as well as at least 5 sources. If information from two separate, consecutive sentences is from the same source, you can combine those sentences into one.
 * 25) *** If you need more ideas for what information to add, here are some suggestions:
 * 26) **** Expand on Description/Anatomy, look up their unique features
 * 27) **** How has it evolved?
 * 28) **** What is it's diet?
 * 29) ***It's quite generous of you to provide specific recommendations, thank you. This is genuinely a well-written peer review.
 * 30) ** Can cut out transition phrases/words to make it more succinct. As it's solely an informational article, you don't need to stretch it out with filler phrases, just state the facts. Short sentences are okay!
 * 31) ** Very informational feedback in this section, especially the grammatical section; I suffer quite a bit from setting high standards for academic writing, but I think being concise and informational would benefit this article heavily.
 * 32) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 33) * Focus on consistency with writing/format and being straightforward with facts! Information is great so just focus on these details and it will really enhance the article!
 * 34) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 35) * I can include in my description things about unique shell and size details it may have
 * 1) * I can include in my description things about unique shell and size details it may have