User:J76hawaii/Pseudanthias hawaiiensis/LilaRM Peer Review

Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) - J76hawaii


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 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 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? -  I think the author did a great job of providing a concise and informative overview of Pseudanthias hawaiiensis. The article is well-structured and easy to follow, with clear headings and subheadings that help guide the reader through the content. I was impressed by the author's use of scientific terminology, which shows that they've done their research and understand the subject matter well. However, I would have liked to see more detail about the fish's physical characteristics and behavior, as well as any threats to its survival. Overall, though, I think the article is a great starting point for anyone interested in learning more about this fascinating species of 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)
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 8) * -  Based on what I read, the article focuses solely on Pseudanthias hawaiiensis, without discussing the genus or family. The subtitles for the different sections are appropriate and help guide the reader through the content. The information under each section is also appropriate, although it would be helpful to see more detail about the fish's physical characteristics and behavior, as well as any threats to its survival. Overall, I think the writing style and language of the article are appropriate for a worldwide audience, as the information is concise and objective.
 * 9) Check the sources:
 * 10) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? - Yes it surely does.
 * 11) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? - There is a reference list at the end of the article.
 * 12) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? - Yes.
 * 13) * What is the quality of the sources? - I believe the sources provided are reliable and trustworthy.
 * 14) 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):
 * 15) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 16) * 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?
 * 17) * - It seems like the article is well-researched and informative. However, it would be helpful to have a clearer structure to the article, with well-defined sections that cover specific aspects of the topic. Additionally, it would be good to include more information about the ecology and behavior of Pseudanthias hawaiiensis, to give readers a more complete understanding of the fish. In terms of improving the article, I would suggest adding more images to break up the text and make the article more visually appealing. It would also be helpful to include more information about the conservation status of Pseudanthias hawaiiensis, as this is an important issue for many readers. Overall, I think the article has potential but could benefit from some additional work before it is ready for prime time. With some additional research and editing, the author could create a more engaging and informative article that would be a valuable resource for readers.
 * 18) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -  I think the most important thing the author could do to improve the article is to add more detail about the ecology and behavior of Pseudanthias hawaiiensis. This would give readers a more complete understanding of the fish and make the article more informative and engaging. Additionally, it would be helpful to add more images to break up the text and make the article more visually appealing.
 * 19) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? - Everything. From the lead section all the way down to its reference list. The article seemed well-structured and I need to make my article drafting look like this user’s article draft.