User:Palma AJ/Kyphosus sandwicensis/Dgruhm 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?

Palma AJ


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Palma AJ/Kyphosus sandwicensis


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

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.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The sections are clearly labeled with an easily identifiable reference list. I'm happy you noticed that I labeled different sections.
 * 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) Has some discussion on subspecies.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, but they may require rewording. Thank your for this part of your review, our other peers also said that I should reword some parts of my article.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Information appears appropriate for each section.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The writing should be revised as there are some mistakes such as "One way it can enjoyed is through poke which a local Hawaiian dish usually consisting of raw fish and some seasonings." which is missing 'be' and 'is'. Thank for reading through my article, I'll make sure to proofread my final draft.
 * 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? Yes
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? There are a couple of ".org" sources which are generally good, but there are no linked peer reviewed literatures. A bulk of the sources are linked to ".com" sources which appear to be privately owned and possible hobbyist style posts which could lead to misinformation. I'll try to find more reputable sources.
 * 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):
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Research and add information from peer reviewed articles.
 * 15) * 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? The article should be reviewed for grammatical errors, editing subheadings, and reviewing/adding better quality sources of information.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Find more reputable resources.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Add in subheadings. I feel like I did have sub-headings in my article but I'll make sure to make it more clear in my final draft. Overall thank your for your comments.