User:Mcking24/Kemp's ridley sea turtle/Coulisz Peer Review

Wyneken Anatomy: The Anatomy of Sea Turtle (sent via text)

Lead

Not the author of the lead.

Content

In your “lead” I would change entanglement in shrimping nets to just entanglement. You can specify/expand on this idea later in your section.

For your conservation paragraph, I would consider taking a more broad approach and highlighting states, beaches, or areas that are heavily involved in kemps Ridley conservation. I think this will keep your article relevant and prevents it from sounding like many of these efforts are not still going on today.

I would review some of your grammar to ensure there are no errors. I would also alter some sentence structures to improve the flow.

Sense you are discussing the conservation of kemps, I would include the current status of them if you have not already.

If you want to add more to your article, I would maybe write some paragraphs specifically on the threats and how they harm kemps.

Sources and References

Try and add some sources to your conservation paragraph. It would be beneficial to know where you are getting your dates and data.

Organization

I liked the organization of the paragraphs themselves but think the feeding paragraph should come before the conservation paragraph on the article page. This way the page is set up by biological/behavioral information and then transitions into population levels, threats, etc.

You mention TEDs which are not a well known device. Try and see if you can add a picture or diagram into the article.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)