User:Piilaniii/Cellana talcosa/HolliSmith Peer Review

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

Reviewing Piilaniii article of Cellana talcosa.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Piilaniii/Cellana talcosa - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cellana talcosa - Wikipedia:

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.) I like that you included the Hawaiian names and plan to add more pictures.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I think it's good that you are focused on finding information for the specific Cellana talcosa instead of just opihi in general.
 * 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, you mentioned looking for specific sources instead of just opihi in general.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, you mentioned planning different sections with accurate titles.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Everything looks well placed so far, I like that you plan to discuss the cultural significance of the opihi family.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) For now the draft is informal and still in the planning stages, but the first sentence's writing style looks perfect for Wikipedia.
 * 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? No sentences are linked to sources yet.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, with three good sources from trustable websites.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? No sources are linked with numbers yet.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The first source website is great and also helped me a lot with my draft. I was going to use pictures from this website but realized they are copyrighted, so had to choose other pictures. Second source is useful for describing shell algae coverage. The third source is good for confirming the correct taxonomy.
 * 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? I think your plans sound good, especially the cultural significance section and anatomy. Something I did is look where photographs of the organism were taken and mention that they can be observed at those specific popular dive spots. One website that helped me find pictures under creative commons license and other information is eol.org. Here is the link to Cellana talcosa https://eol.org/pages/407146. Hope this helps!
 * 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? The article is not ready yet but your plans for the final version and source searching sound promising.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I agree with you that adding pictures is important especially to show anatomy.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes, I could look into the cultural significance for my own article since that is a section I wanted to include but so far left out.