User:Nchardy/Chromis atripectoralis/Ahmedisgr8 Peer Review

Lead:

- Would be better to update the lead section with a brief description of of the article's major sections. But overall the lead is pretty good including some very useful information.

Content:

- Overall very detailed and provide sufficient information that are relevant to the topic.

- Linking scientific vocabulary to other Wikipedia articles would be helpful.

- While it is good to include sister-species (C. viridis), we believe that it could get slightly confusing when it is mentioned too often.

- Should the last sentence under the 'Habitat' section be referenced? It seemed like it is a conclusion of some sort of data

Tone and balance:

- The tones are neutral.

- The topics are pretty well balanced with similar amount of information and length.

Sources and references:

- Most of the information added are backed up! Well done!

- Some of the source are quite old. (we don't know if that is really a major problem...)

Organization:

- The content is pretty clear and easy to follow.

-Nicely separated by different sections

Overall:

We believe the article is pretty organized and easily understood. The different sections of the content tackle some of the major topics that will help people better understand the species.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nchardy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Nchardy/Chromis atripectoralis - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Chromis atripectoralis - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)