User:$cience-i$Fun/Succinea konaensis/Sunsetscenery17 Peer Review
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing?
($ciencei$Fun)
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:$cience-i$Fun/Succinea konaensis
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- User:$cience-i$Fun/Succinea konaensis ??
Evaluate the drafted changes
[edit]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!
- First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.)
- Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I really liked how there was a lot of information to see like the cultural significance and conservation status and how they have a table showing the scientific classification.
- Thank you. I tried my best to find as much information as possible. The table, though, was conveniently there before I started editing.
- Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I really liked how there was a lot of information to see like the cultural significance and conservation status and how they have a table showing the scientific classification.
- Check the main points of the article:
- Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) Yes, the article only talks about the species and about the major points about it like the description, habitat, distribution and more.
- I agree. Although there are some mentions of other levels of taxonomy, they are brief and linked to other articles about those groups.
- Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, they are. They go into detail about the animal for each section based on the subheading. They also don't go off topic too much which is good.
- Thank you. I tried to add as much detail as possible without adding too much.
- Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? I think most of the information is in a good place, but I would move the "and they are an endangered species." in the cultural significance section and move it to the conservation status. I think it's a better place to put it instead and it fits the sub heading a bit better.
- Thank you for that suggestion. I will change that in my article before publishing.
- Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) In my opinion, I think it is a good writing style and it is easy to read and understand even for worldwide audiences.
- I'm glad you find it easy to understand.
- Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) Yes, the article only talks about the species and about the major points about it like the description, habitat, distribution and more.
- Check the sources:
- Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? No, not every sentence is linked to a source.
- That's another great suggestion. I will remove the three sources that aren't linked to the text.
- Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is 6 resources.
- I agree.
- Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes, they are.
- I agree.
- What is the quality of the sources? Yes, the quality of these sources are good and dependable.
- I agree. I used sources that either came from journals, museums, and trustworthy and relevant news articles.
- Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? No, not every sentence is linked to a source.
- 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):
- What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? I think they can improve this article by adding more details on the description like how big or small it is.
- I will try to look into that. It was hard to find sources on the description of the species, so that's why I didn't include any sizes. That is definitely a great suggestion though.
- Is the article ready for prime-time and the world to see on Wikipedia? Yes, I think this article is for the most part ready to be published onto Wikipedia.
- Thank you.
- If not, how could the author improve the article to be ready?
- What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? I think they can improve this article by adding more details on the description like how big or small it is.
- What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think the most important thing the author can do to improve the article is to
- To What?
- Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes, for my article I think I want to add a resource list and maybe a scientific classification table to go along with it.
- Thank you for your feedback and I'm glad you are able to understand it.