User:Gunnarmphawaii/Plagiotremus ewaensis/Danziell Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (provide username)
 * Gunnarmphawaii
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Gunnarmphawaii/Plagiotremus ewaensis
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Plagiotremus ewaensis
 * Plagiotremus ewaensis

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? Something that was done well was that the description part of the article because it was detailed.
 * 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, so far, the article only discusses the one species.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?There are no subtitles
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? I think the information on the top can be broken up into two different sections which could be; the description and Habitat.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)I believe that the way it is written is appropriate, formal, and professional.
 * 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? The statements and the sources are not linked but it does have, in parentheses, where the information is from.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? there is a reference list at the bottom but it isn't linked with a small number.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? The sources are good quality and they are from scholar space.
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 16) ** Something that can be done to improve the article is to separate the information into different subtitle sections like a lead section which is basically a little overview of the article.
 * 17) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 18) * Something that can be done to improve the article is to cite the sources with mla format, a good website to use is easybib.com
 * 19) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 20) * Yes, something that I could have done in my own article was to better describe the fish.