User:Cruzkrafsig/Rainbow Herbicides/Sayagojm Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Cruzkrafsig
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cruzkrafsig/Rainbow Herbicides & Rainbow Herbicides
 * Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic? No,I see one section that was edited but was unsure if that was the entire edit. All information in the revised and original article is relevant to the topic.
 * What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative. The article flows really well and has good organization and structure. Cruz’s revised section of the long term effects makes the section a lot more fluid and makes more sense.
 * What overall adjustments do you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Maybe a little more content should be added on the differences between each rainbow herbicide. Instead of just listing the functions of each and why one was chosen over another, a chart could be the best way to clarify that for the reader
 * Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know. This could be good to study the long term effects of rainbow herbicides, potentially about effects on gene mutations causing birth defects. WIth my article, conditional gene knockout, birth defect causing genes created by these herbicides can be studied.
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information? All new information is backed by a source, however not every source has a link attached to it. This makes it hard to determine the reliability of those sources.
 * Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work? The links that are provided all work well, however some sources do not have links attached to them. Unfortunately, the majority of the sources are from before 2015. This could be because there is no need for further research on the topic, so not many new credible sources are around.
 * Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found. No typographical and grammatical errors were found while reviewing the article, aside from some the in-text citation and references formatting.
 * Student authors are responsible for all images on their page (even if not part of their revised subsection). Double check the original page to make sure images are acceptable and clearly described. See associated tutorial to review Wiki image requirements. Summarize your findings. All of the images are the same in original and revised. Also, each image has an accurate and descriptive caption of what each contributes.
 * Identify at least one additional reference that you think may contribute to the article. Explain why you think this article would benefit from the new information. Be sure to provide the reference in your write-up.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10590500903310195  This source shows the effect of dioxins, PCBs, and pesticides on heart defects. This could help create a specialized section that focuses on the concerns of the chemicals on a medicinal level.