User talk:Cal2air/Bluestreak cleaner wrasse

Peer Review

 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

The article is good at explaining the basic function of BlueStreak cleaner wrasse


 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

Give a little more detain on a what a facualtative cleaner does and its function in the environment. Explain why your species is special.


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Look over grammar


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?

No


 * 1) Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Specifically, does the information they are adding to the article make sense where they are putting it?

Not applicable

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

Yes its proportional


 * 1) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No


 * 1) Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

No


 * 1) Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

Yes they are from reliable spurces


 * 1) Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

No


 * 1) Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

no Amidou1 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)