User:Gedrickt/Hawaiian sea-moth fish/Aizlynn.Gonzalez Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * 


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

Hawaiian sea-moth fish

Peer Review
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.


 * 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) They started to add the links t other important information.
 * 4) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way?
 * 5) " Their jaws cannot be seen when their mouths are closed due to being covered by the lachrymal and being tucked in a cavity made by the nasal rostrum." It helped get an idea of how this animal looks. Thanks, I'm going to add more info about it when I understand their skull a little bit more.
 * 6) Check the sources:
 * 7) Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 8) almost but not completely. I fixed it and added reference
 * 9) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about?
 * 10) Yes.
 * 11) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 12) No. Noted, and added 👍
 * 13) What is the quality of the sources?
 * 14) The sources are numbered but not labeled. I fixed this, thanks
 * 15) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?
 * 16) I would do normal edits like grammar, spelling, and things like that. I would also put in your sources. Yup, fixed up my bibliography too.
 * 17) Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 18) They would help make the article more professional and credible. Yea, it would
 * 19) 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?
 * 20) It is not. They need to edit more and include their sources. Thank you, I worked on my article after this review
 * 21) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 22) Include citations. Added citations
 * 23) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 24) I will add in links to other important information that I use. Good decision!