User:BLC340/Coral poaching/Sidharth S Mahadeo Peer Review

General info
BLC340
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:BLC340/Coral poaching - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):User:BLC340/Coral poaching - Wikipedia

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 authors additions to the article are well supported, relevant and neutral. The formatting is done well, however I don't understand why environmental impacts and political issues each have two different headings. I'd assume they will both be in the combined actual article. That being said, when all this information is combined with the original article you should be aware of the flow. For example, the sentence about the Kuna-Yala indigenous people should be a separate paragraph. Also this article deals with a lot different regions so I think getting specific about the regions your exploring could be beneficial. So, putting a sentence prior to the Kuna-Yala sentence talking about where they are and what coral reef they effect. You do a great job specifying with Tanzania and Australia.

Additionally, the part of extracting live coral seems less political and more environmental. My understanding of it isn't very strong, but it looks as if its in the wrong sub-heading because nothing inherently political is being discussed. I think the political portion of your article would benefit from focusing on strictly policy and economy. Everything else would probably fall under environmental impact.

Overall these are really good additions to the original article.