User:Pruselle/Amastra micans/Yanyan Melhcor 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):Amastra micans

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? - The draft has a lot of information with little sources, I am impress that the article/Sources that the author found has a lot of info in them.
 * 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 the article only talks about the species info: size, color, shape, habitat, and conversation status.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? - Yes the subtitles is appropriate and has a lot of info in them.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? - The information each section is appropriate.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) - For me the writing style is appropriate, I can understand it properly and can see information quickly.
 * 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? - Yes, every sentence is linked into one source, the author use their sources multiple times.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? - Yes there is a reference list in the bottom and every link works and has veracity info.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? - Yes, each is linked with a number
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? - Considering the amount of information that the author has in this draft, the quality of the sources is good.
 * 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 don't have any suggestions, there are some part that sounds wrong because of the grammar, but i can understand what the author is saying. Maybe try reading each sentences loudly to see the error.
 * 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? - In my opinions yes, but again there are some grammar error, so kind of.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? - Grammar, and make sure the sources you use is talking about your species, I tried looking for the sizes of your species using your link, but i wasn't able to see it, probably because I'm blind or Maybe it wasn't just there.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? - I like that they have a lot of information, therefore Ill try me best to utilize my sources just like them.

''I would like to offer my heartfelt gratitude to the person who peer reviewed my Wikipedia entry. Your thorough and critical criticism has somewhat improved my article's quality and accuracy. Your attention to detail and willingness to provide constructive comments were greatly appreciated. Your knowledge and commitment to maintaining the correctness and trustworthiness of Wikipedia articles have had a substantial impact on the quality of information available to the general audience.''

''In particular, I would like to thank you for your comments on how to improve the article's structure, clarity, and consistency. Your comments not only improved the readability of the post, but also gave essential feedback for future changes. I am convinced that your contributions will help to continue the growth and enhancement of the Wikipedia article, ensuring that it remains relevant and beneficial to the community.''

''Thank you again for your time, effort, and insightful input. Your efforts have helped to make my Wikipedia page a more credible and helpful resource for readers.''

Best regards,

Ruzelle Igarta