User talk:DonaldDuck808/Thylacodes variabilis

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

DonaldDuck808


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:DonaldDuck808/Thylacodes variabilis
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Thylacodes variabilis

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?
 * 3) ** The article doesn't seem to be done, so I cannot speak much about the overall structure. However the few sentences in the draft are a great start. I'll update again when more content is available with what impressed me.
 * 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) * Yes!
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) * More sections should be added.
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) * The information is good, they should be put into sections now with more content.
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) * I'd use a bit more scientific voice and really get some good synonyms for common words we use in our daily language. Like for example newborns isn't applicable, something like young/juvenile/planktonic larvae,offspring is more 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) * You did a great job citing all your sentences to their sources.
 * 16) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 17) * Yes!
 * 18) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 19) * Yes!
 * 20) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 21) * I think the quality is good for the 2 that you have, but I would add at least 3 more.
 * 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) * To improve the article, I would start linking more uncommon words to their respective wikipedia pages. For example, any word you don't think a 3rd grader would know, link it. I would also do a lot more digging into the morphology and Hawaiian indigenous uses for this species. I would add subsections first then start researching each specific subsection with the species to get key details to input.
 * 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) * No, I think a lot more information needs to be added. It can be hard, I usually like to use Google Scholar and type in the Hawaiian or scientific name to pull up a bunch of scientific papers, oral Hawaiian documentation, interviews, etc.
 * 27) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing would be to expand on each section, give good connecting details, and really filling up the page.
 * 28) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Not yet.



SonuMonu929 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)