User:Jg6446/Encrasicholina purpurea/Phaygood Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Jg6446


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jg6446/Encrasicholina_purpurea?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Encrasicholina purpurea

Peer Review
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.


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.) I think the article did well in it's structure and complementing the existing article by adding more to background information where the original article lacked. -Thanks! The structure took a bit to figure out. The original article didn't really have much in the first place, but yeah I did try to expand on what was already there.
 * 2) Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The organization of the article impressed me the most since it look similar to a I guess you can say "professional" wikipedia page published by countless people. -I looked at a few example Wikipedia articles to try and see how they structured theirs, then I just tried to imitate those but with the context of my own article topic.
 * 3) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? I think the descriptive words used like "cylindrical" added to the description alot giving more for the reader to think about. -That actually wasn't me who put that, that sentence was already in the article - but, that's good to know! I'll try put some good descriptive words about things like morphology or habitat.
 * 4) Check the sources:
 * 5) Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Yes
 * 6) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? Yes
 * 7) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 8) What is the quality of the sources? The quality of the sources for the most part are good. - Yeah I tried to put as many official/published works as I could, but there really aren't many reports that talk in-depth about Nehu. So, for a few sources me and the previous article editor had to settle for credible websites that only mentioned Nehu and listed some facts. I think the only possibly sketchy one (in terms of quality) is the "Hawaiian Anchovy" PDF, which was in the original article used by the previous editor. Though I think if it's gone this far without being deleted, it should be credible enough.
 * 9) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Adding more information about the Ecosystem impact I think would add to the article. -The report I used to get the info didn't really have much more to say about Ecosystem impact, but I should try to find articles that go more in-depth on it or give more impacts. Thanks for the idea!
 * 10) Why would those changes be an improvement? There is no lack of general information on the species, however, it seems that there could be more unique information presented on the page. -For unique info, I guess you mean info that doesn't relate to what is already mentioned in the article and is new. With that I agree, I do want to add more facts not yet included like morphological descriptions and such. Honestly I just haven't gotten around to doing it yet.
 * 11) 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? Organization wise, I think it would be ready for the world, but I still think on the information side there is some room for improvement. -Yup that's something I have to work on these upcoming weeks.
 * 12) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think continuing to touch up on general information and adding more unique information in the regard of the ecosystem impact would improve it. I'll try!
 * 13) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I say the consistency in linking your sources is something I can take back to my own article. -I hope it isn't as tedious as it was for me. Good luck on your article and thanks for the feedback!