User:BrightBuds/Clonally transmissible cancer/JJ1023 Peer Review

General info
BrightBuds
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:BrightBuds/Clonally transmissible cancer
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Clonally transmissible cancer

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The lead was left unchanged, but the additions were entirely building on previous article so no updating is needed.

Content:

The added content added was mostly additional context and information on older information. The added information about the 2014 case gives an added level of depth because it gave context for the effects long term which wasn't present before. The section about some reservations of Tasmanian devils could be clarified further instead of being left ambiguous.

Tone and Balance:

The added content remains neutral in tone because it sticks to reporting facts. It is very little filler with mostly just simple statements of information.

Citations:

There were noted citation issues that the creator is aware of. References not listed.

Organization:

Sentences are concise and well constructed. There are no blaring grammar or spelling issues.

Images and Media:

No images or media has been added.

Overall:

The content added does improve the quality of the article. The major strengths are it's conciseness and simple relaying of the facts. The sentences are short which let's it be a quick read. They're easy to understand and digest then flow fine into the next sections. They could be expanded on with some more information, but as is they it is fine additions. The biggest improvement would just be getting the citations to work.