User:Trashedwaffles/Amastra spirizona/Tia UH 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.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * 3) ** I like that you took information already existing on the article and you were able to rearrange it in an organized way.
 * 4) ** Great details! You are very straightforward and to the point with presenting your information.
 * 5) Check the main points of the article:
 * 6) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) - Yes
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? - Yes!
 * 8) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? - A few sentences in the Description section can be moved. Explained further in Question 4.
 * 9) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) - Yes
 * 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.
 * 12) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? - Yes
 * 13) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? - Yes
 * 14) * What is the quality of the sources? - Highly trustworthy! Very information-packed sources.
 * 15) 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):
 * 16) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 17) ** You do not need to provide a definition link for almost every term, as they're general terms that many people are already familiar with. For example, population, predator, and species. However, if these are terms you believe are necessary to define, I do not see a problem with keeping it as is.
 * 18) ** I like that you used different names for the species such as "mollusk", and "this species", to avoid repetitiveness. When you do use Amastra Spirizona's proper name, be consistent and stick to using proper capitalization and italics.
 * 19) ** Everything under Description after "The length of the shell attains 18 mm. [ already included in article ]" does not entirely qualify as a description of attributes and behaviors. You can move some sentences to Distribution and Habitat, and create another section for the rest of the sentences on predation as you seem to have substantial information on the subject.
 * 20) ** I'll point out that you are missing a 5th source! After moving the previous information, if the Description section feels too empty for you, you can look for more information on specifically the species' physical traits and attributes that can be added.
 * 21) ** As I stated earlier you are missing a citation for every sentence. Some sentences can be combined if they have relevant information and are from the same article, but only the latter has a citation number.
 * 22) *** For example, you can combine "Though, they are not considered endangered by the state or federally. This species has predators that include rats, cannibal snails, chameleons." to "This species is preyed on by animals including rats, cannibal snails, and chameleons, but is not considered federally or state endangered."
 * 23) *** Another suggestion is to write about endangered status and predators in two separate sections. If you do, be sure to cite at the end of every sentence.
 * 24) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article
 * 25) * Prioritize relevant information, and leave out unnecessary/irrelevant details.
 * 26) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 27) * They included the existing information from the existing article, so we could see what the page would potentially look like with the addition of their draft.

'Hey Tia! Thank you for telling me what I was missing in my article, I completely forgot that I didn't add my 5th source as well as a description of my species. I also didn't know that I didn't use a citation for each sentence. Thank you for mentioning how I could better organize my sections so that it makes sense. That really helps with the layout and formatting of my article! I also really appreciate the example you put so I could better combine my sentences! I'll also be sure to get rid of some of the definitions, I think you're right. Overall, I appreciate your comments and suggestions! They're very helpful.'