User:Crf009/Angelshark/Jar07016 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Crf009


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Creating User:Crf009/Angelshark - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Angelshark - 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.)

1.)   Overall, I thought the article was very informative and well-organized. The lead gave lots of good and relevant information regarding the article. However, the lead and first section contained much more content than the following sections. The tone seemed to be neutral, and the sources seemed to work for me.

2.)   I would focus mostly on the sections with the least content so that you can add more information, especially the ones about habitat and behavior. These two seem like they would be important factors to consider for the species. You could always add some more sources and facts to the other sections as well or go back and make sure everything is properly cited and referenced. Perhaps you could also consider including a separate section for conservation efforts and threats for the species. In my article, I am focusing on those sections which is why I thought to suggest them. You could reorganize some information to do this, or if possible, you could add something about more recent conservation efforts done to protect the species.