User:Cnevange/Calotomus zonarchus/Ashok306 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

cnevange


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cnevange/Calotomus_zonarchus&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Calotomus zonarchus, commonly known as yellowbar parrotfish, is a species of parrotfish native to the waters of the Hawaiian Islands.

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? Reading this student's article made me realize how untogether mine is. Very organized with lots of information about the spieces.
 * 3) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? I didn't see anything in particular that stood out but overall the article is clear and straightforward.
 * 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) Yes, I believe so.
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, each subtitle summarizes the section below it.
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? I don't see anything that I think should be moved, pretty well organized.
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) In my opinion, I see a few poor word choices such as "prior to" instead this student could say, "before," to be a bit more concise.
 * 9) Check the sources:,
 * 10) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Nothing is linked, and there are no numbers anywhere in the article to indicate where the information is from.
 * 11) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is.
 * 12) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? No, they are not.
 * 13) * What is the quality of the sources? The first source is a book I cannot access (need to buy), the second source was good, the third source was a book I cannot access (need to buy), the fourth source URL didn't take me directly to the source but it was easy to find, the fifth source I cannot access (need to buy), and the sixth source was good.
 * 14) 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):
 * 15) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? There are some sentence fragments, and small grammatical errors and I'm not sure if there were just issues on my end but majority of the sources did not work.
 * 16) * 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? For the most part, yes I think this article is ready for prime-time. I do however suggest rereading the article and correcting incomplete sentences, Grammarly is a website you can copy and paste your text into and it will highlight any errors.
 * 17) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Concise writing style.
 * 18) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I love how the article is laid out, I feel it is very easy to read and understand the information given.