User talk:Aennis15/Caudal luring

Peer Review:

The lead is short and concise, describes the topic and includes added information. The lead doesn't mention that sharks also perform caudal luring or the research avenues that are introduced below. Overall the lead is short and sweet and just missing those few topics. Great!

The content added has a neutral tone, is relevant and the sources go to 2013 so they seem relatively up to date. There are a few sentences that are not backed up by a secondary source of information, at the end of the lead, mimicry paragraph, the snakes paragraph, and interpretation. Otherwise the sources are thorough and the links work.

The article is definitely well written and easy to follow, I like the organization difference from the original. There is one sentence that is kind of awkward: "Behavior was first recorded in 1878" in the mimicry section. this short sentence makes the beginning of the paragraph feel choppy.

There are no images in the sandbox draft but I'm assuming that the ones from the original article will be there when the final upload is finished. The image is good, maybe add a few more if they can be found to accurately represent the topics, for example adding a picture of one of the sharks that perform caudal mimicry.

Overall, the article is improved from the original while remaining short and sweet. The research section explains the uncertainty in the understanding of caudal mimicry which also backs up the shorter article. Lovely work Amhwarren (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review of Aennis15's article draft "Caudal luring" by Zh3538
Link to article draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aennis15/Caudal_luring

Lead: You did a good job of updating the lead to reflect the new content that you added. The introductory sentence is clear and concise and the Lead touches on most of the major topics of the article well. There is no unnecessary information in the lead and it is not too simple but also not too detailed. The main suggestion I have is to touch on the research and interpretation of caudal luring as they are important parts of your article.

Content: The content added is relevant to the topic and is up to date. It's simple and easy to read and understand which is great. I suggest adding in a section on some of the species of prey that get lured by the mimicry of these predators.

Tone and Balance: The content is very neutral and there are no heavy biases within the article draft.

Sources and References: Almost of the content is backed up by proper sources. I did however notice some facts in the article that were not backed up by a source so I would try to find some good sources for those (i.e. most of the first paragraph of your “interpretation” section). The sources that were listed are great sources (all scientific articles/journals) and they are up to date. I checked a few of the links of the sources and they all worked so that’s great.

Organization: The content added was well-written and clear but there were plenty of spelling and grammatical errors I noticed that need to be addressed. You have organized the article very well compared to what the original looks like.

Images and Media: I see that the original article has a great, relevant picture of a snake exhibiting the behaviour but I think you should still add an image or video of maybe a shark species exhibiting the behaviour since you talk about both snake and shark species in the article.

Overall impression: I think the content you added did improve the quality of the article. The way you organized it made it flow a lot better. I would suggest adding a section talking about the diet species of some of these predators that display caudal luring. The spelling and grammar need to be fixed in a lot of places, but besides these two suggestions, your contribution to the article is great. Zh3538 (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)