User:Danica Que/Plagiotremus ewaensis/KOSMiKiNG 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!


 * 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 really like the amount of information that they were able to find on the species and how they were able to divide the information into their different sections
 * 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) ** Yes this information only talks about the assigned species
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) ** yes the sections are appropriate
 * 9) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 10) ** no
 * 11) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 12) ** some of the language could be improved on to have a more scientific sounds to them such as "if they get eaten" could change to "consumed". Some of the words can be redundant such as "predetor".
 * 13) *** Thank you for this suggestion! When I go back to my article, I will make a few changes in my language so that my article sounds simpler and easier to read.
 * 14) Check the sources:
 * 15) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 16) ** yes
 * 17) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 18) ** yes
 * 19) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 20) ** yes
 * 21) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 22) ** there is a good nunber of quality sources linked to the article
 * 23) 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):
 * 24) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 25) ** some editing in the wording within the description
 * 26) * 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?
 * 27) ** yes
 * 28) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 29) just the wording for some of the statements
 * 30) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 31) finding a good amount of good sources for the article.