User:SonuMonu929/Montipora flabellata/Jacobk7 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SonuMonu929


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: :User:SonuMonu929/Montipora flabellata
 * Link to the current version of the article:
 * Montipora flabellata

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!

'I feel as if answering each question individually is pointless because I think that its perfect and much better than the article already present on Montipora flabella. I feel as if this was done by someone who knows a lot of information about their species. I honestly cannot think of any way to improve your draft. I like how you but in a lot of links to other wikipedia articles. Good job!'
 * 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? What impressed me the most is that your draft looks more like a actual wikipedia article than the actual article itself does. Great job! You have added so much more facts and details about the species than previously covered in the wikipedia article. Great job with the sub headings too!
 * 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)
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)I feel as if you hit each one of these bullet points perfectly. You only discuss the species, your subtitles are perfect and everything is where it should be.
 * 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?
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

Aloha Jacobk7,

'Mahalo for your peer review, I appreciate the feedback. I think we both do agree this article is in the final stages of editing and looks really good for real world access. If you think of any other suggestions please let me know. Excited to get to the final stages of publishing.'

Mahalo nui again for all your hard work.

SonuMonu929