User:Sawqueenie/Auriculella tenella/Naksue Peer Review

General info
@Sawqueenie
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sawqueenie/Auriculella tenella
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Auriculella tenella

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 physical characteristics of the species were well-explained in the article. The length of the section, Distribution and Habitat description is impressive.
 * 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) Nope, in the Distribution and Habitat section of the article, there was a mention of some other plant species. Perhaps take into consideration eliminating it as unnecessary so that readers are aware of the primary species you are discussing.
 * 5) **  Thank you for the suggestion! Yes I can see your point to where it may seem irrelevant to the species but this action was advised to me but I could definitely try to reword it in a way where it doesn't seem like it takes the viewer's eyes away from the article's point. 
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, the subtitles for the different section is accurate.
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? As previously stated, in the section Distribution and Habitat, the mention of small plants was unnecessary and should be removed, in my opinion. Nevertheless, all of the sections contain relevant information.
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, the writing style and language of the article is appropriate. it's easy to understand and is grammatically correct, except for the first sentence in Distribution and Habitat the word "on" is repeated, so eliminate that.
 * 9) **  I didn't notice that error, thank you for catching it! 
 * 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, not all sentences are sourced. However, the author's sources cited in other sentences were reliable and helpful to this article, so well done.
 * 12) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yep, but there are only four references. Try searching at NatureServe; it's a good source.
 * 13) **  Thank you for the source recommendation, will definitely check it out! 
 * 14) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Only one haven't been linked yet.
 * 15) * What is the quality of the sources? All of the sources works and contains a bunch of information, good job on finding such reliable sources.
 * 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? I suggest you add 1 more source as your reference and try to source each sentences.
 * 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? Not yet, but I believe the author can improve this article by including more relevant information and sections that may be found in the sources, if any.
 * 19) ** Thanks for the suggestion! I didn't really add too much due to the limited information that I had but I will definitely try and look for more sources that could possibly added more information.
 * 20) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I suggest sourcing each sentence to ensure the article's trustworthiness and avoids expert Wikipedians recognizing its lack of citation.
 * 21) * Some of the sentences aren't cited due to another sentence coming up after being in the same source, so it's all quote on quote "clumped together"
 * 22) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The article's Distribution and Habitat is quite lengthy, so I will try to make mine lengthy as well.