User:Glydelc/Cirripectes obscurus/Kainoa Kaeha 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!

There are many functionalities that could be done that will improve and make the article more presentable and interesting so that very can stay and gain useful knowledge without it being all smash together into a very big paragragh.
 * 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) * At first glance, it really felt like you cleaned up the original article. The current one was like an info overload, even though there's only one paragraph, and that side bar thing, and the references. So yes, adding in your lead, description and distribution was a massive step in that regard.
 * 4) * very much appreciate the feedback improving the from original article is always the best to achieve specially making it more detail and understanding.
 * 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) * Yes,
 * 8) * Did my best to stay on the subject
 * 9) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 10) * Yes
 * 11) * Made it easier to understand which subjects are from which sections
 * 12) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 13) * Well, I'm not too sure on the proper wikipedia formatting for your piece in the distribution and habitat where you mention the image (which btw is not showing up for me, I don't know how the function is supposed to work). I'm not sure if "the map illustrates" is referring to the png file on the side bar.
 * 14) * i was trying to add a photo reference to give a proper visual representation of the species and the location that the species may presides within but it seems that no image has been put in
 * 15) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) yes, writing is concise and objective.
 * 16) * Did best to discuss and inform in an educational format
 * 17) Check the sources:
 * 18) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 19) * Yes, though I think the lead could use some of these citations, for example, the belongs to the suborder, or the citation for the distribution.
 * 20) * I understand this it will make it easy to get the citation from the source
 * 21) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 22) * yes
 * 23) * Of course had to show my source of information
 * 24) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 25) * yes
 * 26) * Made sure they did
 * 27) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 28) * After a qucik look, it looks good, except though 1 and 2 are the same link
 * 29) * Yes, you are correct i will fix the issue thank you for bringing this to concerned
 * 30) 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):
 * 31) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 32) * I would try and see what the proper wikipedia function it is to have the photo show up. As well, I like the "TaxoBox" template, which is a box where you can input all the orders, families, domains, etc., so that I don't have to list them. Though, again I don't know the proper wikipedia formating for having multiple side bar box things.
 * 33) * I will look into this, it is a very useful tool to organize varies of information and not get too cluttered where it will become a big mess of information and find a way to put images in the article to give visual representations
 * 34) * 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?
 * 35) * Not quite yet, formating and citations so far looks good, but its pretty close to having what it needs.
 * 36) * Very understanding still needing to improve and fix in certain areas of the article
 * 37) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 38) Fixing the photo function, and adding the Taxo box, fixing that one citation duplicate at the bottom
 * 39) fixing the citation will be an easy fix the two other issues with be a little more challenging i will look into implementing these two fixes into the article and making them work
 * 40) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I would like to add a photo for my species, also gathered from the same site, but I don't know the function/how-to for implementing that into mine. Also, I haven't properly done the citations yet, I just VERY roughly put the things in place so I can fix it later. So it's good to see how you've set up the citations the way you're supposed to.