User:Pruselle/Amastra micans/Eldrenn Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Pruselle/Amastra micans
 * 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) * The article does well at organizing their information and delivering it in a way readers can easily understand. Also, I am impressed with the description, as it is very detailed and does a good job describing the organism.
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 9) * The article only discusses the organism Amastra micans. Subtitles and information for the sections are appropriate as they are factual and based off verifiable data and nothing needs to be moved. The writing style is suitable for a worldwide audience as the article is written in an unbiased and straightforward style that allows for easy understanding for audiences around the world.
 * 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?
 * 12) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 13) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 14) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 15) * Each statement in the article is linked with one or more sources in the reference list with a little number. There is a reference list at the bottom that contains 5 sources. The sources used are quality sources as they are from trusted websites that have been updated recently.
 * 16) 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):
 * 17) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 18) * 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?
 * 19) * I don't think the article is ready to be published for the world to see on Wikipedia yet, as there are things they could do to improve the article. They could improve this article by adding some pictures as it could help convey some information better.
 * 20) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing the author could do to improve this article is by adding images, as it would help make it look more presentable.
 * 21) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I noticed that the author added a link to at least one source after every statement, which could be applicable to my own article.

''I would like to thank you for your thorough and careful assessment of my Wikipedia entry. Your feedback and recommendations were invaluable in increasing the content's quality and accuracy. The comments and suggestions have been quite useful in enhancing the article, and I appreciate your willingness to share your expertise.''

''Your input has given me a new perspective on the subject and helped me discover locations where I may improve the article. Such inputs have helped to guarantee that the material in the article is accurate, unbiased, and well-written. I am committed to making the required changes and improvements to the writing based on your feedback, and I hope to gain more from your thoughts in the future.''

''Thank you again for taking the time to read and review my piece of writing. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and they have helped to make my Wikipedia page more ready for publication.''

Best regards,

Ruzelle Igarta