User:IkaikaRSM/Montipora patula/Dcloset788 Peer Review

General info
IkaikaRSM
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:IkaikaRSM/Montipora patula
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Montipora patula

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.) Overall structure is a very organized and the species information such as the habitat of writing style is concise.
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * 3) ** The references style is very short, so I am wondering whether my references should be fixed.
 * 4) ** Yes, I hope to make my references a little longer.
 * 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) ** It does.
 * 8) ** I will talk more specifically about the species rather than the genus and family.
 * 9) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 10) ** They are.
 * 11) ** I'm glad.
 * 12) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 13) ** It looks they are perfect.
 * 14) ** Thank you very much.
 * 15) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 16) ** Overall writing style and language of the article are appropriate.
 * 17) ** Thanks.
 * 18) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 19) ** There is the reference list.
 * 20) ** I plan to make it clearer.
 * 21) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 22) ** There are sources linked with a little number on each sentences.
 * 23) ** I will put more sources and sentences with the sources linked with a little number on it later.
 * 24) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 25) ** They are fine sources.
 * 26) ** Much appreciated.
 * 27) 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):
 * 28) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 29) * 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?
 * 30) ** It looks like almost ready for prime-time and the world to see on Wikipedia.
 * 31) ** Thank you.
 * 32) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 33) * If the author cite the some words of link Wikipedia, it would be great. There is one word cited the link Wikipedia.
 * 34) * I will add more sources. I will also link more of the words in my article to different articles on Wikipedia.
 * 35) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * 36) * I wasn't able to find how to divide for information under each section appropriate. I was struggling to do that, but the author has done appropriately. Also, my sentences should be organized the same as author. Maybe my species should include the life cycle and reproduction.
 * 37) * Thank you for the feedback to make my article better. I hope all goes well with your article.