User:Bdorado/Undulated moray/Ashok306 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

bdorado


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bdorado/Undulated_moray?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The undulated moray (Gymnothorax undulatus) is a moray eel of the family Muraenidae, found in the Indo-Pacific and east-central Pacific Ocean at depths down to 30 m. Their length is up to 1.5 m.

Evaluate the drafted changes
Please answer the following questions in detail addressed to the classmate whose article you are reviewing. Remember this is constructive feedback, so be polite and clear in your suggestions for improving their article. We are all working together to improve the Wikipedia pages for the amazing species.

Use a different font style (bold or italic) for your answers so it is easy for the author to see your comments!


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.)
 * 2) *Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Another article putting mine to shame, a very clear and well-thought-out layout of the article. I think I could clean up the layout more
 * 3) * Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? Comparing the white border on the eel's body to a chain link, "It is also lined by white borders forming similar to a chain link." I need more details for it's description
 * 4) Check the main points of the article:
 * 5) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family) Yes, it does.
 * 6) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate? Yes, each paragraph's corresponding subtitle seems appropriate.
 * 7) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved? Yes, I don't see anything that should be moved.
 * 8) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience) Yes, it's a very clear and easy-to-read writing style. I tried to make the information easy to understand.
 * 9) Check the sources:
 * 10) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Not every sentence, but the majority. I need to fix my sources.
 * 11) * Is there a reference list at the bottom? Yes, there is.
 * 12) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Only three of the listed sources are linked throughout the article. I need to fix my writing to make use of my sources more.
 * 13) * What is the quality of the sources? It looks like each source is good quality and reliable. I have some good sources, but I need more to add to the article.
 * 14) Give some suggestions on how to improve the article (think of anything that could be explained in more details or with more clarity or any issues addressed in the questions above):
 * 15) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article? Under the subtitle "description and biology," the overall description of how the animal looks is great but there could be a bit more details about the species' biological breakdown. I need to add more details to my sections, I feel it doesn't have enough information.
 * 16) * Is the article ready for prime-time and the world to see on Wikipedia? If not, how could the author improve the article to be ready? I feel like it is almost ready, the information and layout of the article in general is so clear and easy to read; might just be a few more small things to add. To be ready, I need more information and fix my sources.
 * 17) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Sources, only three of the sources listed are linked in the actual article. Finding more sources is where I'm having trouble
 * 18) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? After reading this article, my article is missing some key details and definitely needs revision.