User:Danziell/Chromis ovalis/Dkim3738 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (Danziell)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Danziell/Chromis ovalis
 * Link to the current version of the article: Chromis ovalis
 * Link to the current version of the article: Chromis ovalis
 * Link to the current version of the article: Chromis ovalis

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? The article did well on providing enough sources or references.  The subtopics are included and structured good.
 * 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, currently the article briefly provides information on chromis ovalis
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes the subtitle for each section is appropriate and relevant to the species.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Information is correctly under each section is. Nothing needs to e moved
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Writing style is appropriate, though more information is needed.
 * 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, not all sentence in the text are linked to the source, although it has the number but no source..
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? No
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The quality of the source is good and reliable as they are journals, books and articles from an established researcher.
 * 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? Some things that can be done to improve the article is adding more information like their behavior, tactics, feeding and reproduction. No change is needed.
 * 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? No. Adding information on the species.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Further information on the species.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? One thing I noticed that could be applicable for my own article is using the external links to certain words.