User:Baum019/Last Glacial Maximum refugia/Illiad5922 Peer Review

General info
Baum019
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Baum019/Last Glacial Maximum refugia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Last Glacial Maximum refugia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead has been updated and contains a lot of new and good informantion. The sentence you highlight I am unsure if you should keep as you say, it does not fit in well. Your lead does begin to seperate the discussion of sourthern and northern hemispheres but I would list some of the main diffrences besides human habitation. Your lead is very straight to the point and does a good job introducing the topic.

Content

The content you picked was very educational and you did a very good job at explaing each of the contenenits diffrences. Your information seems up to date with most of what I checked at least 2000s. I am not familiar enough to know if somethinf is missing however most of what you detail seem to make sense to be present.

Tone and Balance

You do a good job holding a neutral tone in your article. I would have liked to see when you detail two hypothosis such as in the last paragraph in the europe section you explain if one is more popular or what the current state is on that matter. One thing to note is to look at your perspective in writing. Sometimes you write as if this is the past and sometimes it is present language. (ie was versus is) Trying to keep this consistent could help people reading this article. Otherwise there is not much to say here you seem to be ontop of this section.

Sources and refrences

The sources you use do a very good job of filling out the information you need. The content of your article is supported very heavilt by your sources and I don't think you would need to find more. It seems you did a very thorought job. What I would note is that while you have done a good job creating your article from them a few of your citations are missing information. You can see wikipedia marks what you need in red for example citations 6 7 and 8.

Orginization

Overall your content is well written however I would recomeend rereading it as there are some sections the wording seems off. For example the sentence "In the present, Europe houses the Mediterranean, temperate forests, boreal forests and several steppes." in the europe section could be reworded to be better understood. I personally had to check a couple times to note if we were talking about the climate or the location. I did not note any obvious spelling errors but I am the worst person to tell that so I would recomend copying what you've written into say a google doc to check this. The sections you choose are very fitting for what you talk about. However the inclusion of the see also section is a positive however your article does not touch on any of those things and a reader would have no idea why they are relevant. Perhaps find a way to explain at least which of the sections they are connected to. A lot of this article is bold and I am unsure as to why it is. Some of your sentences need minor changes for example the last sentence is "Majority of the wet tropics after the LGM were replaced with woodlands and grasslands." perhaps rewrite that as The majority of the wet tropics after the LGM were replaced with either woodlands or grasslands.

Images and media

I like the ice sheet image made however the use of color may help with keeping things seperate. The image for the europe section does show some refiguia but I would probably explain what soltrean and prosoltrean cultures are as well as why this image is here. Why do you highilight these refugia specifically? This is also true of the wet tropics image of australia. The images are laid out very well however and they do enhance what the text says. Perhaps add some refrances to the images as you are discussing things.

Overall impressions

You've done a great job filling out this article and it is much more complete then when you started. The strengths of your article right now is the amount of content you've added. You've made sure to highlight multiple regions and explain their current climate compared to their old. The best way I belive you can improve your article is to fix the issue with the bolding, explain your images a little more, and to add a bit of explination to the see also section. These are all very important areas and I would not say to change them drastically. The see also could be done by sorting them through geographic areas if they are connected to specific ones or maybe explaining why one would look at these things. I am not sure the best way to lay it out as I do not know why they are there.