User:AVee65/Atherinomorus insularum/Dgruhm Peer Review

Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

AVee65


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:AVee65/Atherinomorus insularum


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Atherinomorus insularum

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? This is a great introduction providing some details of the species of this fish.
 * 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) Yes
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? No subtitles provided.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Only one section provided. Seems to fit as an introduction/background section.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The information is concise and to the point of the article. I would suggest possible rewording some of the sentences that use "they". It is stated a lot for one paragraph.
 * 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? No identifiable sources linked.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? No reference list.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? N/A
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? N/A
 * 13) 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):
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? I would suggest trying to reword some of the sentences so that it does not feel like the word "they" is being repeated multiple times in a row. Also, make sure you add in and link all of your resources as there currently are none.
 * 15) * 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? This is a good background and introduction to the species. It would be nice if you were able to find a bit more information, but I also understand that the literature is limited for some species. A little rework of the paragraph with sources added and you will be onto a great start!
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Add sources/references.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Adding subsection titles. (Artesia Ve'e: Hey Dgruhm, I totally agree with you about my article needing more information. I also need to add my sources/references. Thank you for your honesty, appreciate the feedback. I will make sure to add more information to help support my article, and to add my sources/references. Mahalo!)