User:Palma AJ/Kyphosus sandwicensis/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?

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
 * 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.) The organization of the information is well done. I'm glad that you were able to find a lot of information about the Kyphosus Sandwicensis. Thank you
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I was impressed about the information about how to prepare this species. It makes sense to put in what it might taste like to others as it is a local Hawaiian dish. I thought it would help people understand the fish more if I would included what it tasted like, I'm glad you noticed.
 * 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, it only discusses about the Kyphosus sandwicensis.
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes! They are appropriate and clear.
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Nothing needs to be changed. The sections are where it should be.
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, I would say that it is! One note I have is the part about how the Nenue tastes. I think that it could be worded in a way where it is not so opinionated. I'll try change it for the final draft, thank you for your input.
 * 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! Everything is done perfectly.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes! I am able to see the reference list clearly.
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes, each of these sources are linked with a little number.
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? A lot of these sources look like blogs that may not be most accurate than scholarly texts. The only strong reference that I can see is the WoRMS website and FishBase. I'll try to find more strong references.
 * 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? As mentioned before, changing the opinionated phrase of the taste of the fish. You could say "According to locals, Nenue has a favorable mild taste of limu, which also refers to the diet of this fish." Furthermore, I think it would be great if youu added more information on what they feed on. Perhaps making an additional section just for its food.
 * 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? Most of it seems ready! Just suggesting to change the note I wrote from this previous question. Even the citations are up to parr.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The wording, and maybe the accuracy of the sources that the author is getting the information from.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I believe that the human-use information will further inspire my article to search for more information on my species. I really appreciate your input, if I follow your critiques I'm sure my article will be a lot better.