User:Audrakobus/Mary River turtle/Srthompson012 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Audrakobus


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Mary River turtle

Evaluate the drafted changes
This article is very informative. There is a handful of important information already written, and it looks like it is a great starting point for adding additional information. One recommendation would be to add a "lead" section into the article. Right now, there is a sentence discussing what the Mary River turtle is and where it is endemic to, but more could be added. With more detail added to the lead, the reader will have a greater understanding of what the article goes in depth with. The information presented has a lot of good variation. This means that it is well-sectioned between types of information presented and it also discusses many important points such as taxonomy, description, ecology, and conservation. A second recommendation is in relation to the photo of the turtle that is currently placed in the article. A clearer photo that shows more of what the animal looks like might allow the reader to have a more detailed mental picture of the turtle as they are reading. Currently, the article is pretty well balanced. The description and conservation sections of the article hold more information than the other two, but that is expected. The way they are presented is what allows for a more balanced appearance. Maybe you could combine the taxonomy and ecology sections? With this, more information could be blended together, and this might improve the article balance/flow. The information throughout the article is strictly professional. This is great, as there appears to be no bias or opinion, and the author is not trying to persuade the reader. There were nine references for the article, a lot for the information given. This is good, it means that the information was well-researched and not all taken from one source. This helps to reduce potential of taking information from unreliable, or even incorrect sources. All of the sources are properly formatted and cited throughout the article. They all seem to be from the correct type of sources: scientific or primary. A great start to a very interesting topic!