User:CoolEditorPerson/Ecological genetics/2funky Peer Review

General info
CoolEditorPerson
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:CoolEditorPerson/Ecological genetics
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Ecological genetics

Evaluate the drafted changes
Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the lead section can probably be combined, as they both discuss research of ecological genetics.

I feel that the first paragraph of the history section is a little all over the place. I think the sentences can be reordered to make more sense chronologically, eg "Ford is considered a founder of ecological genetics because of his research (etc etc)", then talk about the impact Ecological Genetics had. The phrase "magnum opus" is opinionated, should be replaced with references to the influence of Ecological Genetics or something. For paragraphs 2 and 3 of History, if there are no explanation of their research and findings, it would be helpful to like to existing Wikipedia pages on them (if any). Otherwise a very brief explanation (a sentence or two) would be nice.

The phrase "threw light" does not exist. I don't think that's a real saying. "Shed light" is real, but that's a biased phrase to use. "Once doubted" is also opinionated. That whole sentence can probably be rewritten to be more factual.

The statement at the start of the Limitations needs a source or some kind of rewording. "These are both difficult requirements" is a biased statement, also kind of weirdly worded. "Going strongly" is a biased statement. Also I think in general most research fields extend past the original researcher's lifespan. The last sentence is also biased and has really weird wording. Honestly this whole paragraph needs to be remade.

It seems like there isn't a lot of relevant information overall as to what ecological genetics actually IS. idk