User:Trashedwaffles/Amastra spirizona/Nichellecorpuz Peer Review

General info
Trashedwaffles
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Trashedwaffles/Amastra spirizona
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Amastra spirizona

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!

Comment on Peer Reviews:
 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.) The article did well with having a good structure and organizaiton.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I liked the list of subspecies.
 * 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, there is no other info about the genus or family.
 * 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) Yes, it has proper grammer and sentence format.
 * 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, there is a link for each source at the end of the topics.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, it is in order and corresponds to the text above.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? They are trustworthy and loaded with good amount of information.
 * 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 suggest adding information about the evolution of how the species came to be and possible relatives.
 * 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? No, it still requires additional information.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Add a section about how the species looks like such as their colors and size.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I saw that I can add a subspecies list to talk about family of the organism.

'''Hi Nichelle! Thank you for reviewing my article. I really appreciate the compliments on the structure and organization. Thank you for suggesting how I could add possible relatives and information about the evolution, as well as a description of my species. That was something I forgot to add so I appreciate it! Thanks!'''