User:Chipmonkey9/European eel/Cjlewis1204 Peer Review

General info
Chipmonkey9
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Chipmonkey9/European eel
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):European eel

Evaluate the drafted changes
It looks like there is information in the lead that can't be found within the actual article. I would be careful with that and definitely add sections about that information! Otherwise, the information looks good for a lead.The content you added looks great! It looks like you added information about disease and parasites to a section when I think it could be its own section. I would also make sure you are flushing out the important information that can't be found on the article. Information about habitat, diet, and behavior are important when it comes to any animal. Your tone is great. It is unbiased and to the point. There just isn't currently balance among the information on the article and your edits. Once you edit the other sections I'm sure the balance will become more even. Your sources look great and really support the section you created.


 * 1) "Anguilla anguilla (Linnaeus, 1758) European eel". FishBase. fishbase.org. Retrieved 3 January 2017.

I would be careful with this source as the date might be wrong for when the actual article was published. Sometimes the auto citations will use the incorrect date. Your sources are very focused on the one section that was added. I would find more diverse sources that cover other topics about the eel. Going back to the organization, I would make another section with the disease and parasite information. It's important to the commercial fisheries but feels like it could be its own section. Overall, the added information adds to the understanding of the animal. You took a critique that was made on the article and fixed it which is great. I would say to do some more research and find out more about the eel itself to add as the article seems to lack quite a bit of information.