User:Farolineclin/Contemporary Evolution/Slaw88 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Farolineclin


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Farolineclin/Contemporary Evolution
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)

This article is notable, follows the pattern of and links to other similar articles.

The lead section is concise, includes a concise introductory sentence and clearly describes the article topic. But, a brief description of the article's major sections is lacking. Provided references exist, It might be good to considered emphasizing that generation time is the metric of how rapid evolution is and not just the number of years as it may apparently seems. Thus, smaller organisms with faster generation time will exhibit more rapid evolution.

The content added are recent and relevant the topic. However, the sections “Applications to Conservation Biology” and “Contemporary Evolution in Restoration” should include example/instances where contemporary evolution has been applied, if available.

Both viewpoints are presented in a balance fashion.

All reference links work. About half the cited references happen to be first authored by Reznik. This might be considered a bias. I will advise improving the reference list with publications from diverse spectrum of authors. Most content is backed up by reliable secondary source of information. Look out for uncited ideas e.g. “This idea led to the belief that changes in a population's heritable characteristics could not happen within a human's lifespan, thus a person could not directly observe evolution take action.” These may be considered original research, which is not permissible on Wikipedia.

The organization of the write up is great; it is concise, clear, and easy to read with no any grammatical or spelling errors.

Overall, this is a great first draft of the article. Please keep the suggested improvements at heart as you develop the article. I look forward to reading an updated version soon.