User:Sriracha0414/Spotted boxfish/CMLCC2003 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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? The amount of detail in the Description and Reproduction sections.
 * 3) Thank you so much!
 * 4) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? The description clearly describes how males of the species differ from females of the species. As well as how adults differ from juveniles.
 * 5) Thank you so much!
 * 6) Check the sources:
 * 7) Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? No, nothing has the references with the little numbers.
 * 8) I agree, I only realized that the reference links were not with any of my sentences maybe a few days after I turned it in; however, I will be adding the reference links ASAP.
 * 9) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? No, they also mention pufferfish and blowfish.
 * 10) I agree, if I remember correctly, I believe I added them into the article because they were related to the Spotted Boxfish? I can't really remember.
 * 11) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number? There's a reference list on the bottom. However, they attempted the little number thing but did it incorrectly. I believe they had trouble with that formatting.
 * 12) I had no problem with the reference list at the bottom of the article, thank goodness! I did have a little bit of trouble with the formatting, but I now know how to do the formatting correctly and I will be fixing those errors ASAP!
 * 13) What is the quality of the sources? Sources seem good quality for the most part.
 * 14) Thank you!
 * 15) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Fix the references with numbers. Finish the classification section. The sentence in there doesn't even end in a period and also does not state what taxonomical classification Actinopterygii is.
 * 16) Thank you! I agree! I should add the reference links to my sentences and finish the incomplete sections and sentences.
 * 17) Why would those changes be an improvement? References help viewers find other sources about a topic. The classification section is under detailed and needs more.
 * 18) I agree and I'll be adding more information to my classification section ASAP.
 * 19) 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? Almost there, just fix the references and add more to classification.
 * 20) I agree, I'll be adding the information and the reference links needed ASAP!
 * 21) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Classification improvements for sure.
 * 22) I'll add them to my article ASAP.
 * 23) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Maybe adding an anatomy section to my article too.
 * 24) I need to work on mines too, I have a lot of work to do. Thank you for reviewing my article!