User:Corduroycopepods/Faunal assemblage/Kait.Snow Peer Review

General info
< User:Corduroycopepods
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Corduroycopepods/Faunal assemblage
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Faunal assemblage

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, I think the information added was very good and I think the grammar was good too. Changing the structure of the article from the original was well done and really helps make it flow better. The article contained a good amount of links which also made understanding the information easier as I could simply hover over the word I needed clarification on. Also, the section "Life vs. Death Assemblages" was a good idea considering different fields may define things differently, so I thought explaining this in the article was smart. I also think the tone of the article was good since a lot of the information was definitions describing something in a neutral manner.

I think when this is transferred over to the real article, the "Life vs. Death Assemblages" should be a Heading instead of a Subheading to help further organize the article since it took me a few seconds to realize the "paleontology" and "Archaeology" sections were a part of it the first time I read it. I think the information in the lead section is a good overview of the topic, yet I think more citations should be added. For example, you defined uniformitarianism and superposition in the second paragraph so I think you could add the source from which you got this definition from (unless you knew this information already and didn't use one). I think another source that would be good to find would be for the information on the bottom which talks about East Africa. It looks like this information was from the original article and not something you wrote, so you may not be able to find it but it would be good to look for it.

From the original article, the sources don't seem to be cited in the article, so it might be good to try locating where these sources might go in the article so you can properly cite the information.

I think the new sources you incorporated in your draft seem reliable as they appear to be published works and scientific articles (though I couldn't really double check since I couldn't get access to them as many require purchase).

Also, since the original article and your draft have no images, I think it would be a good idea to incorporate an image in one of the sections. It could possibly be an image of an example of a life and/or death assemblage since this was talked about in the draft for some time. Or it could be an image of something mentioned in the lead section, like an example of a faunal assemblage or superposition, etc.

Overall, I think the information added in the draft will help make this article more useful! Nice job!