User:Waileia6/Chlorurus perspicillatus/Gr3gagustin 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)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.

The article has a well written lead of the species being covered although maybe adding a few brief descriptions of the major sections to follow would help the readers preview the content.

'''The content added is relevant, accurate and up to date with reliable sources. The content available for this first draft is excellent and well organized.'''

The picture provided is clear and it helps understand the details with the visual of the species being mentioned.

The tone and balance seems to be in good order, I did not see any bias with the material included.

'''Overall impression of the article is that it is very well written and organized. I love the attention to detail with the addition of a cultural significance section along with the interesting anatomy mention of the fish transitioning from female to male. There was not a lot I could think of to improve the article as it is already in excellent state, although maybe adding a few more sections could help boost the article but so far great job.'''