User:IkaikaRSM/Montipora patula/Cachola9 Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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!


 * 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) ** The author did a good job categorizing the sub-topics.
 * 4) ** Thank you for your input.
 * 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, the article is only discussing the species.
 * 8) ** I will do more research on the species a little more and talk about more things.
 * 9) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 10) ** Yes, subtitles are appropriate and supported with supporting information.
 * 11) ** Got it.
 * 12) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 13) ** The information relates to the sections provided.
 * 14) ** I will add more information later.
 * 15) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 16) ** Writing style and language are academically displayed.
 * 17) ** Thank you for telling me how to improve my article.
 * 18) Check the sources:
 * 19) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 20) ** Yes
 * 21) ** I'm glad.
 * 22) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 23) ** Yes
 * 24) ** I appreciate it.
 * 25) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 26) ** Yes
 * 27) ** Thanks.
 * 28) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 29) ** Sources are credible
 * 30) ** I plan to add more sources like that as well.
 * 31) 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):
 * 32) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 33) ** Author could add a little more to the Lead, but other than that everything looks great.
 * 34) ** Much appreciated, I plan to add more to that section.
 * 35) * 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?
 * 36) ** No, only because we’re in the building phase of our article and there’s more to be added and reviewed.
 * 37) ** I will build the article so it will be the better.
 * 38) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 39) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 40) * Utilizing the drafting pre-sections.
 * 41) * I hope to add more to my article as well.