User:SamuelCaballero94/Naso lituratus/Bdorado Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SamuelCaballero94


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SamuelCaballero94/Naso_lituratus?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Naso lituratus

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? It was very well detailed for the species description. Was also very straight to the point on the facts.
 * 3) * Thank you! I tried my best into making it straight forward.
 * 4) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? Very detailed on the type of fins the species has.
 * 5) * I made sure to include most if not all types of fins of the species.
 * 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) The article discusses what the species looks like and the type of fins it has.
 * 8) * I made sure it was descriptive.
 * 9) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? The subtitles clearly state what each section is about.
 * 10) * I made sure each section had a different title label.
 * 11) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? The information is in the right spots but it needs more. Some stuff that can be added is any special features if it has any.
 * 12) * What kind of information is needed to be added? Information such as visual images or facts?
 * 13) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) The style and language is appropriate, very concise in talking in how the species looks.
 * 14) * Thank you! Yes, I didn't want to use inappropriate language.
 * 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? Student needs to add where each sentence had pulled it's information from.
 * 17) * Yes, I need to fix that. I need to add a link in each sentence of where I got it from.
 * 18) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Sources used are located at the bottom of the page
 * 19) * Yup, there are sources at the bottom. I double checked.
 * 20) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Sources needed to be numbered so you can quickly link where the information came from and which source.
 * 21) * Will do! I gotta make my sources numbered.
 * 22) * What is the quality of the sources? The sources are alright. The article needs more reputable sources.
 * 23) * Okay, I will try to add more reputable sources.
 * 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? The article needs more, with how it's written it looks very bare and doesn't look there is much information.
 * 26) * Okay, will fix that!
 * 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? It is not prime-time ready, The draft looks about the same as the existing article. Maybe adding more to the human use and finding if the species has any cultural significance to Hawaii.
 * 28) * I could add more in those sections.
 * 29) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? You could add more to the Distribution and human use sections. Those sections seem to have the least information for them. Okay, I can add more information in those sections.
 * 30) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The article is well organized, so I could use that clean up my own article. Okay, so basically add more information! Got it