User:Sleeping-Tarsier/Sufflamen bursa/Destinycanoneo Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sleeping-Tarsier


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


 * 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? This article is very impressing. Everything is organized, descriptive, detailed, and informative.
 * 3) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? That it has a rectangular body, pectoral, anal, caudal, dorsal and pelvic fins; and a toothy snout that is more reminiscent of a beak.
 * 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). The article only discusses the species this article is about.
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes each section is appropriate and headings are descriptive and organized into specific classification sections.
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Everything under each section is appropriate.
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes! it has concise and objective information for a worldwride audience.
 * 9) Check the sources:
 * 10) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Yes! Very organized, sentences are linked to the articles provided.
 * 11) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes!
 * 12) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Link is provided in references, but the links are doubled.
 * 13) * What is the quality of the sources? There are so many sources. Great sources in fact. It is very informative towards the specific species and also comes from .org sites.
 * 14) * 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). I am unsure on suggestions to improve this article. Everything was greatly described!
 * 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? This article is ready to see the world once the first part of the references are deleted. Links are already in the citations, secondary links is fine but not necessary.
 * 16) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? my article and this article is based on two different species and I wasn't Abe to find any similarities within each other.