User:Cherrycoke5/Coral bleaching/Sam ERTH Peer Review

General info
Cherrycoke5
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Cherrycoke5/Coral bleaching
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Coral bleaching

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead section of the article is quite detailed. It is a little on the long side - perhaps cut it down a bit and make it more of a summary of the information stated instead of detailed explanations. There is a bit of new information added that strengthens the sentence flow in the first two paragraphs, such as the first sentence when coral bleaching is first being introduced. The introductory sentence is gripping and straight to the point. Most of the content mentioned in the article body (which has not been edited yet) is mentioned in the lead section, which introduces the topics quite well. A lot of the concepts such as processes, how the coral dies, and climate change, all have their own section with a good amount of detail.

Content

The new content added so far is in the lead section. The sentences flow well with the writing that was there before, and the sources are relative, from the last 10-15 years. All the new information is backed up by multiple sources. The content (so far) does not address any underrepresented topics or populations. It is unbiased and objective.

Tone and Balance

Since this is a scientific article, most of what is written are facts and not statements. Therefore, it does not seem like you or the other authors of the article are trying to sway the reader in one direction or another, The writing is neutral, and actually has an engaging tone that makes me want to continue reading.

Sources and References

The few new sources added are relative and some are from well-known journals, such as Springer. It seems like most of the information in the current draft are cited properly. I found this peer reviewed journal article: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00037-7 from the Carleton University Library page, that has a lot of good information regarding your topic. It is detailed, has a few images you can use for the article, and a long list of references you can refer to for more information and diversity if you want to try out another author.

Organization

The content added so far is well written with no spelling and grammatical errors. It adds to the original content in a seamless way and is cited. I noticed you structured an outline, and it seems like a great start.

Images and Media

No new media has been added yet.

Overall Impressions

Overall, not a lot of content has been added, so I did not have that much to go by, but it seems like you have a good start and a solid understanding on how you are going to add to the article and improve it. You have a a good amount of sources to start off by from reputable places (I noticed a book and a few journal articles). The original article is quite long so I do not think you need to add much more information, but it could use some more sectioning off, images, and overall just aesthetics. It looks a bit cramped right now.