User:Ztanaka/Achatinella fuscobasis/Jaeden D Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ztanaka


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ztanaka/Achatinella_fuscobasis?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article
 * Achatinella fuscobasis

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 the amazing species.

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? What impressed me the most where how organized it was and seeing how each statement had links at the end so I can see where this person got their information from.
 * 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 article does cover a lot of information about the species they are working on.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? The subtitles are totally appropriate for the information this person is trying to convey to the readers.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Most of this person's section has appropriate information but one thing I would move is from the lead where it talks about the habitat move it into distribution because it makes sense to talk about where it's commonly from and what kind of habitat it lives in.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The writing style and language of the article are concise with quick appropriate sentences. They hold no opinions on the species everything about this article is totally neutral not leaning towards any side whatsoever.
 * 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, most of this person's statements are linked to a source in the references.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is a reference list at the bottom of their sandbox.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes, every source is linked with numbers of the number of references this person has.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The quality of each of this person's sources is reliable and holds a variety of information on the species.
 * 13) Give some suggestions on how to improve the article (think of anything that could be explained in more detail 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? Changes I would suggest would be to move a section of the lead where it describes its habitat to "Distribution" where you can talk about where they are common and what habitats you would find them in. To improve the article I would like to see more in the lead like does it have a common name it goes by or does it have a Hawaiian name information like that.
 * 15) * Is the article ready for prime-time and for the world to see on Wikipedia? If not, how could the author improve the article to be ready? I feel like right now it isn't ready but it will be if there was more to read about. It feels quick which is nice but as the reader, I would want to know even more about the species specifically the animal they are researching on.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing would be to expand more on their information what I mean by that is to give more details on your species. This person checked off the boxes by filling them in but now add more depth to each of your sections without making it look like an essay.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I would cite my information to the references at the end of every sentence it covers.

= Zoey: Peer review really just says to add more info which I will do. Also says to edit lead which I will do. =