User:Aml1251/Ribbon eel/HabitsofEelz Peer Review

General info
Aml1251
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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 lead section is good and adequately defines the ribbon eel but I would just improve the wording of the second sentence, "What is now known as R. quaesita also includes the former R. amboinensis. R. quaesita was used for blue ribbon eels and R. amboinensis for black ribbon eels, but these are now recognized as the same species." I would change this to "Though the name R. quaesita was formerly used to identify blue ribbon eels, while R. amboinensis was used for black ribbon eels, these are now recognized as the same species, R. quaesita." This change reduces redundant wording and make the lead section easier to read.

Moving to the section Development, I would just recommend making sure the sources are after the periods of a sentence, even if it is a very minor suggestion. I think some of the sentences could elaborate more, instead of stating " In captivity, the color differences are not related to maturity or gender" and then there is a source, there should be more information on why the color differences are not related. That being said, the references in this article seem good. They appear to be from credible sources and academic sources rather than random articles found online.

I think other improvements could be made to flow throughout the article. For example, in the lead section, it discusses which parts of the world ribbon eels are found in, but the section titled "Habitat" does not mention or elaborate on this information. If possible, I would make this section longer and try to find more sources for it. Overall, this article seems clear of any bias or informal language; the information that is provided is for the most part easy to understand. The only part I am seriously questioning in terms of flow is that second sentence in the lead section and the last sentence of the article, "Although captured for the aquarium industry, it remains common and widespread, and is not considered threatened." The aquarium industry part seems very randomly placed in the article and no other information is given on this aspect of ribbon eels. I would recommend either elaborating or even making this it's own section (especially if ribbon eels are an endangered species because that could be relevant) and if there is not enough information to add, consider removing this sentence from the article to maintain a neutral tone.