User:Glydelc/Cirripectes obscurus/Alizepal Peer Review

General info
Glydelc
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Glydelc/Cirripectes obscurus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Cirripectes obscurus

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!

One thing this article did that I haven't yet is to add different headings to my article.
 * 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) * Compared to the information on the Wikipedia page for the species, this article adds a significant amount of information about the look, size, and habitat about this species.
 * 4) * The original article of this species was very direct and got to the main point, but it was a very vague statement of information it has given. i have just given it more information and went into a little more detail to give to help give a better understanding of the species
 * 5) Check the main points of the article:
 * 6) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 7) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 8) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 9) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 10) * The subtitles for the different sections are good and on topic. The language in some areas can be slightly clearer. The last sentence in the description had some language that feels subjective.
 * 11) * Many of the descriptions in the subject text are to give a more accurate report of the species in subject. understanding the terms of language in the subject of interest best helps describes the language and wording used in the article.
 * 12) Check the sources:
 * 13) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 14) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 15) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 16) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 17) * The quality of most of the sources looks good. Each source linked to but there is a repeat in the reference list.
 * 18) * Yes, there has been a repeat in the reference list, thank you for bringing this to my attention it will be fixed.
 * 19) 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):
 * 20) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 21) * 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?
 * 22) * The article is good, the reference list and some language used could fixed but its good overall.
 * 23) * I appreciate the feedback and will work towards fixing some of the language in the article to fit into a more societal use.
 * 24) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 25) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

Yes, you are correct it makes the article very bland making it very difficult to catch the reader's attention and to validate if the article is legit or not.