User talk:Carruxton/Snake skin

Peer Review

Neutral Content In your edits, I see the neutral content being written and it is written where I feel a broad audience can understand the material.

Reliable Sources I think looking at more sources will be helpful in editing the “Snakeskin” page other than the sources that you used in your proposed edits.

Clear Structure I like how you organized your “plan of action” in the sections you want to edit. It was clear to follow along which was taken directly from the Wikipedia page and what your proposed edits would be. However, as a peer reviewer, you mentioned your topic of focus is “Snakeskin”, but I couldn’t figure out how this topic/page contributes to an overall page your team is focusing on like “Snake Anatomy?”.

Also, a suggestion that would be helpful for other peer reviewers is embedding the Wikipedia page you are focusing on. When you mention combining some sections together or moving them, it would help to visualize what you are proposing.

Integration Our team is working on adding multiple images from dissection and uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. We can probably help each other out in the process of uploading :) CJManalo25 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Carruxton! I love the sources you incorporated into your drafts. They are good peer reviewed sources. You can also try to look into anatomy textbooks for sources if you are just focused on the snakeskin anatomy. I believe you incorporated a lot to make these Wikipedia entries better. I also noticed that you are working on different components of the snakeskin, which is great! I would highly suggest working on one component at a time. I would also suggest hyperlinking some words or phrases that can be better navigated throughout the text, as well as incorporate images of snakeskin.My Unique Deoxyribonucleic Acid (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)