User:J76hawaii/Pseudanthias hawaiiensis/Miligirl808 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?

J76hawaii


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:J76hawaii/Pseudanthias hawaiiensis
 * 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?
 * 3) * What impressed me was the unique trait of the fish and how you may find them swimming upside down while they're in caves or along reef ceilings.
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 9) * Yes the article only discusses the species and not just the genus or family. The subtitles for the different sections are appropriate. I would say for the human use section, the author can add more detail about what type of environment the species prefer to live in when in an aquarium. The writing style and language seem appropriate.
 * 10) Check the sources:
 * 11) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 12) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 13) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 14) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 15) * Yes there is a little number within each statement. There is a reference list at the bottom, but I don't see it linked with a little number. The sources seem legit and reliable.
 * 16) 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):
 * 17) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 18) * 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?
 * 19) * I would personally say that a bit more information can be implemented in the article and maybe even include the subtitle "Cultural Significance" in Hawaii. Maybe fixing those things will allow the article to be ready on Wikipedia.
 * 20) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing I would say is adding a bit more information and adding the little numbers.
 * 21) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I need to add the little numbers in my text and also my resources at the bottom.