User:Shurwill/Parupeneus porphyreus/Kylee Jane Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Parupeneus porphyreus


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Shurwill/Parupeneus porphyreus - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Parupeneus porphyreus - Wikipedia

Peer Review
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.


 * 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? -In the article, there is a very good intro paragraph including its name in Hawaiian, their diet, and even information in legal harvesting.
 * 3)  Thank you 
 * 4) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? -Not yet, but it does include what type of fish it is, and the general name. Will describe species better
 * 5) Check the sources:
 * 6) Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? - The statements do not have a number provided with is that includes the source. There is only a parenthesis next to the sentences with the key word of one of the sources, in this case, (Keoki)  Will fix that
 * 7) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? -Yes, this article so far only has information on the white saddle goatfish.
 * 8) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number?-There are a couple of references, but there is not number provided with them, which should be done.
 * 9)  Will do 
 * 10) What is the quality of the sources?- The first resource is a good one coming from the DLNR, which provides rules about the legal harvesting of this fish within the public. But the second source is a photography website, which only provides some basic information, and the third source is a PDF which is a strong source.
 * 11)  I use the Website because the publisher of the website is the owner of the images, it gives important small information. 
 * 12) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?
 * 13) Why would those changes be an improvement? -I would suggest to provide another photo of the fish maybe swimming in the water.   Will look for one 
 * 14) 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? -I would suggest adding more lead section for the article including reproduction, anatomy, environment, and why it is endangered.  Will do 
 * 15) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -I would say it would be to add more information and find more sources to take notes on.  Will do 
 * 16) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? - I should talk about the harvesting laws for my species. Nice take away