User:Tannerhmgiles/Cellana exarata/Kaligibbons Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tannerhmgiles


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Tannerhmgiles/Cellana exarata


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cellana exarata

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * The lead looks great and is very concise, but could use more information. The lead should be a summary of the entire article, so including something short from each section of information would be a good add, and would help reader's get a good, basic understanding of the organism. The addition of what the organism means in Hawaiian culture is a really cool addition.
 * The introductory sentence is great and gives a good basic intro to the topic
 * Definitely add in more information from each section to improve the lead, since it should be a summary of the most important information
 * The information in the lead about Hawaiian culture should be talked about and expanded on later in the article, but it looks like you're planning to do that with the cultural significance section
 * Super concise! Not too detailed, could actually use more information

Content


 * All of the content written is relevant, and really interesting - I like learning about your invertebrate :)
 * The additions and changes from the existing article are also really good. I like your organization better and you've provided more information already. I also love the additions of cultural significance and assume you'll re-add the human use information under here (if not it would definitely fit well under there)
 * Overall, the content looks good so far, obviously you're not finished with research and writing but what you do have is really good

Tone and Balance


 * Tone is done really well - everything you have so far is concise and completely factual. Definitely can expand more in some areas, or add to some sentences so they don't all feel so short/choppy, but overall the tone is really neutral and delivers information in a way that's easy to understand with no bias

Sources and References


 * I only saw one source on your bibliography page so I would definitely get that added to the draft so that you can start adding in-text citations
 * We also need 12 sources, but I know you're probably still working on research!

Organization


 * Looks really good so far - I think the sections you have outlined make complete sense and I'm excited to see them all filled in
 * Good job also with the sub-headings, it makes the article much easier to follow and to find information in
 * The content is well written, but there are a few grammar and spelling errors that I noticed so just make sure you're checking your work over
 * For example, you wrote "indention" when I think you meant "indentation" and a few times you have "..., this ..." which doesn't always make sense so try switching that out for other words/connectors

Overall


 * Really good job with what you have so far - mostly just needs more information, sources and citations, and some grammatical changes!
 * I compared it to the article that already exists, and think your additions and changes will add a lot to this article and make it flow better/easier to read, while providing a lot more information, especially about why this organism is important