User talk:Liezel Lagat/Dictyosphaeria cavernosa/SonuMonu929 Peer Review

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 does well in the sense that a lot more content has been added, the references are listed correctly and neatly as well. The structure of adding more headers that do not exist in the original article is a great plus. I was impressed with learning the impact this species had in Kāne'ohe Bay's sewage outfall era in the 60's.
 * 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) * I'd look over the Impacts to Ecosystem section to make sure the information only pertains to this green algae species.
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) * You can take out any information already existing in the article to a new spot, if it fits the flow better.
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) * The notes Kumu made are what I would recommend in moving to new sections/combining sections.
 * 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.
 * 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 all reliable primary or secondary 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) * 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. Limu plays a huge role in Hawaiian society and each species is used for a particular part of their sustainable culture and social aspects too.
 * 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, compare it to other very common green algae found in Hawai'i.
 * 28) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I liked the impact on the ecosystem section.

SonuMonu929 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)