User:Gedrickt/Hawaiian sea-moth fish/Esjohnso2022 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gedrickt/Hawaiian_sea-moth_fish?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * 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?  The way information was discovered to add to the little information that was in the original wikipedia article. Thank you, I tried to find credible sources from museums n researchers
 * 3) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? Classification/ habitat
 * 4) Check the sources:
 * 5) Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? not using the cite option under wikipedia edit opotion I learned how to use the cite option with the little number 👍
 * 6) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? yes
 * 7) Is there a reference list at the bottom? no Is each of those sources linked with a little number? no, there were not resources at the bottom but there was a number (1), (2) or (3) that was linked in the previous draft. I had those as a placeholder for a google doc but I hadn't figured it out at that point, my fault
 * 8) What is the quality of the sources? no idea not listed in the bottom Completed my bibliography, let me know what you think
 * 9) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?  To add references in the Wikipedia cite option and an illustration. Thank you, I'm thinking about adding images to my stuff but I haven't checked the copyright stuff yet.
 * 10) Why would those changes be an improvement?  I could do a peer review. In the biology when gedrickt is describing the jaw I could reference the drawing after reading to make the explanation in the article clearer. Will add one soon if I am able to.
 * 11) Is the article ready for prime-time and the world to see on Wikipedia? no If not, how could the author improve the article to be ready?  See above #3. Yes, I agree
 * 12) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?   references and maybe using the subsection option. I added a subsection option and references 👍
 * 13) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?  I could add more about the flightless development in the flightless crane fly and the information about its family. That sounds good