User:SonuMonu929/Montipora flabellata/DonaldDuck808 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * SonuMonu929
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SonuMonu929/Montipora_flabellata&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Montipora flabellata - Wikipedia

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? Added a very high level of new details on species. Article went from about 5 sentences to 25 sentences.
 * 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
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Looks beautiful
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Good scientific writing style with many words linked to other wikipedia articles for ease of understanding.
 * 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? Indeed, all but Human Use and the description of the species are properly sourced. Human Use and the species description is lacking a source.
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources? Many decently-lengthed articles, thus indicating of high source quality
 * 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? Human use is lacking. There could be more information on how humans use the species. What specific jobs? Any examples of weathering?
 * 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? Nearly. Just needs to follow my advice mostly on Human Use, and then will be ready.
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Find more sources and more information. Provide more information in Human Use.
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Finding multiple sources can be a great way to write the information in the article. I may need more sources so that I can get my article to the appropriate length.

Aloha DonaldDuck808,

'Mahalo for your peer review, I appreciate the feedback. Your suggestion on Human Impacts were great, I however didn't use any sources due to making that paragraph on my own. I guess a personal reflection isn't the best for a heavily sourced based article assignment. I'll take your suggestion and review the section more thoroughly. All the other points were great as well. Excited to get to the final stages of publishing.'

Mahalo nui again for all your hard work.

SonuMonu929