User:Vealasko/Neripteron vespertinum/Trashedwaffles 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!


 * 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? Your word usage to describe your species is what impressed me.
 * 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) The species family is briefly mentioned but it was already in the article. Everything added was about the species.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? '''The subtitles are appropriate and fitting for each section.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Everything is appropriate.

''Nic's Response: I appreciate the suggestion of adding a picture, as far as I know Professor Anu will add a picture. I will definitely try to fill the empty spaces to enhance my article, and if I can't find any information for the headings, I will just delete them like you suggested. Thank you for peer reviewing my article!''
 * 1) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes
 * 2) Check the sources:
 * 3) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Every sentence has a source linked to it, nice job!
 * 4) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is a reference list at the bottom.
 * 5) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 6) * What is the quality of the sources? Reliable.
 * 7) 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):
 * 8) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? I think this article is nicely edited. I'm having a hard time finding anything to suggest. If anything, try adding a picture.
 * 9) * 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? I do think this article is ready. Everything is straight to the point, detailed and descriptive. Maybe getting rid of the article draft section as well as the Human use and Cultural Significance section because it is empty.
 * 10) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Probably getting rid of the empty section.
 * 11) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Something I think I should add to my own article would be the physical description of my species.