User:Mamonaka/Parupeneus porphyreus/Sleeping-Tarsier Peer Review

Whose work are you reviewing?

 * Mamonaka
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Parupeneus porphyreus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Parupeneus porphyreus

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
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) * -It's pretty good.
 * 4) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way?
 * 5) * -NA
 * 6) Check the main points of the article:
 * 7) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 8) * -Yes.
 * 9) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 10) * -I think so, but it can be expanded upon.
 * 11) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 12) * -It's appropriate, but some portions of the text could use a wider variation in vocabulary while other portions could be shorter.
 * 13) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 14) * -Yes and no. Some portions sound objective, while others sound subjective to the writer.
 * 15) Check the sources:
 * 16) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 17) * -Yup.
 * 18) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 19) * -Yes.
 * 20) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 21) * -As far as I see, yes.
 * 22) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 23) * -I think they're pretty good.
 * 24) 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):
 * 25) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 26) * -I suggest to expand upon the article while also making the sentences more concise. Less is more in some situations, not all though.
 * 27) * 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?
 * 28) * -What I wrote in the question above would be the same answer for here.
 * 29) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 30) -Same thing. More information while maintaining conciseness. The text feels like it could use some more evidence, but that's just me. I've seen wikipedia articles that are super short.
 * 31) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?


 * -Honestly, everything I said I need to take into account and fix my draft myself.


 * 1) applicable to your own article?