User:Slhight/Auriculella tenella/Rcinfowikirc Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (Slhight)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Auriculella tenella
 * Link to the current version of the article: User:Slhight/Auriculella tenella
 * Link to the current version of the article: User:Slhight/Auriculella tenella
 * Link to the current version of the article: User:Slhight/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 the amazing species.

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 now has a clear structure that did not exist beforehand. More information was added to the original content.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The morphology and anatomy section is very descriptive.
 * 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
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Yes
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The writing style is neutral and the information provided is objective.
 * 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
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? 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? Some changes I would suggest. 1.) For the section titled Description either just leave it titled as Description or change it to just Morphology & Anatomy. 2.) The only section that is a little bit confusing is the one titled Article Body. Is that part of the Lead Section? The Article Body can form part of the Lead Section. You can maybe add what Hawaiian Island your species is found in. 3.) The last sentences in Description and Distribution do not have citations. If the sentence is cited from the resource on the citation of the sentence beforehand I would put the citation at the end of the second sentence.   2. Yes I noticed that it was not deleted prior. And yes, I as well noted some of my points being a bit general, not as detailed.  3. Yes I stated the citation beforehand to reference the rest of the paragraph but easy fix to move it towards the end of the sentences.
 * 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 good but maybe some slight adjustments can be made. Grammatical structure in some of the sentences can be improved. Maybe add a sentence of which Hawaiian island your species is found.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Add more information to the Lead Section. Change some of the grammatical structure in your Description section. Example: Shell Description- Seven inflated whorls and Slender and high spiral should be added to another sentence or the information should be in a sentence that makes sense. Yes I will do that; the information inputted were not put in as complete proper sentences as it'd look better that way.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? No