User:Danica Que/Plagiotremus ewaensis/Alizepal Peer Review

General info
Danica Que
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Danica Que/Plagiotremus ewaensis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Plagiotremus ewaensis

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 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!

This article is has more detail then my own so I gotta step it up it that department.
 * 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) * I believe this article is well structured and provides clear information about the species.
 * 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) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 9) * The subtitles for this article are appropriate and the writing in it is subjective and on topic.
 * 10) Check the sources:
 * 11) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 12) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 13) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 14) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 15) * The references used all seem credible and all are linked to through the entire article.
 * 16) 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):
 * 17) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 18) * 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?
 * 19) * I'm honestly not sure on how the author can improve this article. I thinks this is a good article ready to see the world.
 * 20) ** Thank you for your honest opinion! I'll be sure to make a few more edits before publishing since another peer review suggested a few changes.
 * 21) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 22) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?