User:AJEA2000/Woody plant/Lubovmyra Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

AJEA2000


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AJEA2000/Woody_plant?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Woody plant

Evaluate the drafted changes
Looking at the lead, in this Wikipedia article, it seems like the whole document had been remade where no original parts of the document are left. The lead lacks a general explanation of the woody plant and directly goes into they way that the plant reproduces. Which may be fine if the article was about the reproduction of the woody plant however this is supposed to generally describe the plant. It may have simply not been properly written out. If the role of the woody plant been put first it may have made more sense for this assignment.

The general content about the woody plant is generally informative it simply mentions the uses and survival. The information that had been entered is relevant to the topic and certain references are from recent months, so the content is up to date with information. Certain information is missing such as what was in the original version of the document. The whole articles lacks the original points such as the characteristics and the way it grows. In the following copy those parts should be added, however, the content that is there but it would have been good if certain more sections had been more explained.

The content that had been added was quite neutral and more so narrative in order to explain everything much easier. Most of what is written here is simply descriptive of the woody plant and their uses by people. There are no efforts of persuasion the reader in any direction. There are no real repetitions or if there are they aren’t noticeable enough to mention. The overall balance of everything that was written seems perfect so no changes will be need to be made. I feel like more photos could be added or changed or at lead have one places at the beginning of the whole description.

When it comes to the sources and references section, it seems like some are out of alphabetical order. It was mentioned in the title that certain changes to the references were going to be made in the next edit, so it is understandable. The link marked as 13 seems to be poorly formatted and out of order, simply put it seems out of order. Most sources used are from this year meaning that they are up to date. All the references are also quite varied allowing for a lot of perspective.

Overall, the whole articles updates seen fine the only thing that needs to be sone is adding some of the old Wikipedia article and craft a good introduction. Adding an image at the beginning of the article would also be a great idea. The edits are going in the right direction.