User:NoelaniV/Snowflake moray/CMLCC2003 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

NoelaniV


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NoelaniV/Snowflake_moray?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Snowflake moray

Peer Review
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.


 * 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? The way the content is organized is very well done. The student tries to put at least some information in each section.
 * 3) Any turn of phrase that described the species in a clear way? I liked the student's lead, it listed many different names for the Snowflake moray as well as the meaning behind it's scientific name.
 * 4) Check the sources:
 * 5) Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number? Almost every statement is, only missing this for 2 sentences.
 * 6) Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? No, another species closely related to the snowflake moray is stated, the zebra moray. I kept this to show a similarity between two species of moray, in that they both have blunt teeth specialized for their diet.
 * 7) Is there a reference list at the bottom? Is each of those sources linked with a little number? Yes and yes.
 * 8) What is the quality of the sources? Seem credible to me. I added a few more and still need to add one for the IUCN Red List
 * 9) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Add something to the cultural significance section and add reference numbers to the statements that are missing them.
 * 10) Why would those changes be an improvement? Currently the cultural significance portion is missing and also references help readers to find the sources where statements come from to ensure they are credible. I'm still working on filling out this section and will put a reference to the book I got the information from.
 * 11) 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? Overall the changes are good. However, a bit more detail can be added to a few sections as well as the suggestions mentioned above.
 * 12) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Add more detail to the classification section. Currently there is only the family. Where is everything else? I know the species and genus are mentioned in the lead, but I believe restating them in the classification section just makes sense. I will add this.
 * 13) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The reference section is very neatly organized and I could definitely benefit from using an arrangement like that. Thank you.