User:Sawqueenie/Auriculella tenella/Porkhash808 Peer Review

General info

 * Sawqueenie
 * User:Sawqueenie/Auriculella tenella
 * 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.) The article had good information and lots of sources to reference in her paragrpahs.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I liked the description becuase it impressed me how small this species is.
 * 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) The article only talks about the species and only facts about it but not anything about it's relative family.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? The titles are appropriate because they relate to what the paragraph is talking about towards the species.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? There is no specific information that should be moved but distribution and habitat should be separated since they talk about different things.
 * 7) **  Hi! I could see where you were coming from, originally I had them as different sections like how you said for the same reason but Professor gave me feedback to change the same and combine them together. 
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The writing style is appropriate.
 * 9) Check the sources:
 * 10) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? There is at least one source after each topic that is talked about in the sections. It has a number connecting to the reference link.
 * 11) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 12) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 13) * What is the quality of the sources? The sources are reliable because they have good information that is true and talks about the species.
 * 14) 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):
 * 15) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Add more sections that talk about more things like the anatomy and why it is important in the environment.
 * 16) ** I will definitely try to find more information, the reason why I had only a couple of sections is due to the limited amount of information that I had.
 * 17) * 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 really ready because it could use more sections and other topics to be added to make the descriptions stronger.
 * 18) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Add images and pictures to catch readers attention.
 * 19) * Pictures definitely do help catching the readers attention but I didn't really think of that at the moment because there was already one (Professor will do it)
 * 20) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I can italisize the scientific names of my species.