User:Vealasko/Neripteron vespertinum/Nichellecorpuz Peer Review

General info
Vealasko
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Vealasko/Neripteron vespertinum
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Neripteron vespertinum

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!

'''Nic's Response: I like the suggestion of adding a map link, I also think this could help improve my article as it can give the reader more grasp on what I am talking about. As far as I know Professor Anu will add the pictures to our articles, but I appreciate the suggestion. Thank you for peer reviewing my article, I will definitely refer back to this to improve my own article!'''
 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.) The article had powerful and descriptive information.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I liked how this species is a freshwater snail.
 * 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, it only speaks about the species itself.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes because they relate to what is being talked aobut.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Yes, it is good.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, there is nothing wrong with the word or content.
 * 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, it has a source linked to each one.
 * 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 is reliable since it is filled with true information and nothing false or unreliable.
 * 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 believe adding pictures and visuals or even a map link would improve it.
 * 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? Yes because it has good information already stated.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Adding pictures
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I noticed a human use and cultural significance that I would add to mine.