User:Dgruhm/Scarus dubius/J76hawaii 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?

Dgruhm


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Dgruhm/Scarus dubius


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Scarus dubius

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? I was impressed with the information they got. It had some great facts about how they have a defense mechanism, all the habitats they inhibit, and how they are important to the ecosystem.
 * 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, the article only discusses the species.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? They actually don't have any subtitles for the different sections.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? They did not have different headings for each section. It is all together as one.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, the writing style and language of the article is appropriate. Very straight forward and not being biased towards anything.
 * 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? Yes, they have information in their sentences linked to a source with a little number at the end.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is a reference list at the bottom of the page.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes, each source is linked with a little number.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The quality of the sources look good and reliable.
 * 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 adding in headings or subtitles for each section. It could help the reader find the information they are looking for more easy.
 * 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? I don't think that the article is ready for prime-time Wikipedia. Adding in the subtitles and maybe some links of the words would help it a lot.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think the most important thing the author could do to improve the article is to add subtitles and links.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Yes, I noticed how they put in their article how important the parrotfish is to the ecosystem. If I can find information for my fish, I should add that into mines as well.

''Thanks for the feedback and comments. I added subtitles to my article. I appreciate your input. D.G.''