User:KaydenPogia/Cirripectes vanderbilti/Aaron Hinchman Peer Review

General info
Kayden Pogia
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KaydenPogia/Cirripectes_vanderbilti


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirripectes_vanderbilti

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.)

'''One thing that the article does well is the amount of info provided within the first paragraph. There is a small amount of general info that is easy to look for and covers the basics of an animal species.''' '''I am impressed from the amount of general info that is provided in only a couple paragraphs. There are only 2 paragraphs but there is not wasted space; Each sentence has info for the reader to look at.''' Yes, the article only talks about the species, apart from the info on the right side with genus, family, kingdom, etc. '''I do believe that there is only 1 subsection subtitled which is the “references”. I am not sure if there needs to be a subtite for the two main paragraphs.''' All of the info seems to fit nicely where it is currently. The writing style and language are appropriate for this assignment. Each sentence has a source that is correctly linked. Yes, all sources used are linked at the bottom of the article. Yes, each source is linked with a small number. I think some info about the physical traits would fit nicely along with the length of the fish (color, markings, whiskers, etc). I think that the article is ready to be seen by the public. I think finding a couple more sources that describe the fish would help give the audience a more general idea of what the fish looks like. '''One thing that I liked that could be used to improve my own article is the basic description of the creature. The author has a good description of their animal that I would like to take inspiration from.'''
 * 1) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * 1) Check the main points of the article:
 * 2) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 1) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 1) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 1) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 1) Check the sources:
 * 2) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 1) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 1) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 1) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 2) 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):
 * 3) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 1) * 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?
 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?