User:A.twohig/Paleomycology/Eyeball7878 Peer Review

General info
A.twohig
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:A.twohig/Paleomycology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Paleomycology

Evaluate the drafted changes
First I would suggest breaking up the article body into subsections like Research, Types, Case Specimens, etc. See User:Kait.Snow/Microfauna for examples of sections. Some of the article body can also be trimmed out as it may not be relavent to paleoecology.

The lead should be a bit longer and introduce the sections of the overall article. Once you figure out your subsections you can create a lead that gives and overall gist of the several lower sections that tie them to the article topic.

A lot of the added content to related to the topic and has just needs to be restructured into key related sections. The information is neutral and avoids bias. The used sources seem strong and contain added content. Sources are also fairly recent.

Adding an image could be good to give a visual of a fungal fossil or a representation of mentioned fungal relationships.

I think that you can take the added content and restructure it into subsections that will better direct the information needed. Maybe add an image for subsections like type that show above image ideas. The added content seems really good and relavent to the article topic.