User:Miligirl808/Chromis verater/Mkurosu808 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?

Miligirl808


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Miligirl808/Chromis verater


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

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.) The article is well organized and appropriate for a wikipedia page. The outline is all set, and almost ready to be published for the world. Thank you for the compliment!
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I was impressed by the amount of information that Miligirl808 was able to find especially when these organisms have little information to them. Thank you, it was kind of challenging to find information on my species but what I ended up finding I hope it was good enough.
 * 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) Yes! the article specifically describes the Chromis Verater.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes. They are all appropriate.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? There is no need to move anything.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, the wording is clear and concise. Just fixing the speculation of "this species probably prefers a low-lit aquarium". How would you change it?
 * 8) Check the sources:
 * 9) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Each statement or sentence does not have a little number referenced to it.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes there is a reference list!
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? They are just links without actual citations, and no little numbers. I need to figure out how to add in those little numbers.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? Some sources are scholarly, but there are a few that are just aquarium blog websites. It is understandable if there is not a lot of sources for this organism, but it is best to stick with sources that can be backed up with scholarly evidence.
 * 13) 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) Some of the formatting could be changed for the sections (maybe a little bit bigger). I think looking at other wikipedia pages can help. It was a little difficult to see what you changed versus what was the original (if you just copied it into the original articles thats okay! you can disregard my comment). I'm not quite sure there was an original article about my species.
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 15) ** The information is Distribution & Habitat seems like it is a speculation rather than evidence or factual information. "this species probably prefers a low-lit aquarium".
 * 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) ** The citations need to be referenced as links rather than parenthetical citations and links on the bottom.
 * 18) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The citations, and some of the wording on the information. I will try and change it up.
 * 19) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If I can find any information about how to care for them, it would be helpful to see it in my wikipedia page as it is information about preserving these Hawaiian creatures.