User:Gunnarmphawaii/Plagiotremus ewaensis/YaelPacheco Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  Gunnarmphawaii
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gunnarmphawaii/Plagiotremus ewaensis - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article: Plagiotremus ewaensis - Wikipedia

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? Provided meanings to Hawaiian word, described the physical appearance of this fish
 * 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
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Needs to add
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? different headings can help separate into sections
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Mostly
 * 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? No
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? No
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? Scholar references
 * 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? Adding headings, hypelinks for reference list, maybe bold a few important key words.
 * 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? I think it need a bit more refinement, mostly to follow Wikipedia articles drafts or articles.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Headings for sure
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Not particularly.