User:Shiryl82/Bigeye barracuda/Miligirl808 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?

Shiryl82


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Shiryl82/Bigeye barracuda


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

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?
 * 3) * I would say what impressed me is the information provided describing the bigeye barracuda, specifically where it can be found and its habits. Some of the vocabulary in the article is used very well, as in using better words to make the article sound stronger.
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 9) * Yes the article specifically talks about the Bigeye barracuda. There are no sections or subtitles in the article. I think more information needs to be in the article including the distribution and habitat, also human use and cultural significance. I see some grammar errors that need to be fixed for the article to make sense.
 * 10) Check the sources:
 * 11) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 12) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 13) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 14) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 15) * I don't see any of the sources used in the article or with a little number. Yes there is a reference list at the bottom. There is not little number linked to the sources at the bottom. Some of the articles look reliable.
 * 16) 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):
 * 17) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 18) * 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?
 * 19) * I think the author needs to go back and read over the article because there are some grammar errors. I believe there needs to be more information provided and subtitles. I would say adding more information and looking it over for grammar errors will allow the article to be seen on Wikipedia.
 * 20) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I would say the most important thing is adding more information to the article.
 * 21) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I'm not sure I see anything that could be applied to my article.