User:Vana000/Dendropoma gregarium/IkaikaRSM Peer Review

General info
Vana000
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vana000/Dendropoma_gregarium
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendropoma_gregarium

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.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * 3) ** No, nothing impressed me because there wasn't much there.
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 6) ** It only tells me what species it is and the family it belongs to.
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) ** There are no subtitles.
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) ** There should be more information instead of only just one piece of information.
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) ** The writing style and language of the article was very appropriate.
 * 13) Check the sources:
 * 14) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 15) ** Yes, there was only one sentence and source there and it was linked to each other.
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 17) ** Yes, there was one reference listed at the bottom of the source.
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 19) ** Yes, it did have a little number linked to the source.
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 21) ** The quality of the source is good. It could have been better, with more sources.
 * 22) 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):
 * 23) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 24) ** I would add more sources and information to the article.
 * 25) * 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?
 * 26) ** I believe that this article is not ready for prime time. It would be ready for prime time if it had more sources and information.
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 28) * Make it longer or find more articles to do research on the species and add more sources.
 * 29) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 30) * Adding the Genus of the species I am talking about in my article.