User:Frances Mamman/Late Pleistocene/Ghostpants321 Peer Review

General info
(Frances Mamman)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Frances Mamman/Late Pleistocene:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Late Pleistocene:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Despite the fact that you have chosen an article with 'a'mid-importance' rating, I can see the potential and needed improvements in the original article. I think the information you employed was well researched and put together. Despite it being lacking in quantity, I love that you explained or summarized the reason why you employed the chosen information.

The article that you have chosen is a very widespread subject with too many discerning traits. You can use it to your advantage to better improve the already-existing headings, or you can change the structure of the whole article and make it fully balanced and clearer. The added information that you added is clear and neutral in perspective, where you clinically assert the information without claiming any moral grounds, such as humans overhunting megafauna.

Lead

From your draft, you are right that the original lead article was well put together. The only complaint I have towards the lead is a lack of references that you can probably expand on and probably certain mistakes in the decimal markers that you should review. The lead is well researched, but it is too weak to connect to the article body.

Article body:

I love that you included small summaries on certain parts of the article; however, I think you have not much improved the article and just added a couple more informations.

Per example, the sentence that you used, "It hasn't been said that this is a major reason for the extinctions, but there are other reasons, this is still a debated topic, and the major reasons are still being established", can still be written in the article and can be discussed further in depth. It is true that no one knows the real reasons for the extinction, we can only theorize it with assumptions and data, such as " Magdalenian hunter-gatherers" that you referenced and added. However, so much more can be added and displayed in the article. The "Late Pleistocene" is a really rich time of our life, from sea level change, human migrations, and megafaunus extinctions to the transition to the Holocene.

I understand why you added a section for "South America", the information and references that you put together are interesting and neutral in perspective. However, much information can be added to enrich and overall balance this section. Probably, from this sentence, "diverse factors such as climate change may have triggered these extinctions, but it's still in debate what the major factors is", enlarge it and further explain what these diverse factors were that happened during the late Pleistocene in South America.

"Oceana", "Far East", and "Africa" are not well balanced in length and in content, if compared to the other sections, they are very low in coverage.

Your content is well up-to-date and your sources are well done, but there is much room for improvement in the added content.

To find more sources and information, probably go to the numerous wikipedia sources in the original article such as "Magdalenian" and check the reference page.

Conclusion

Your bibliography and references are well researched. If you properly enlarge your "South American" section and add more information in the other sections, provide images, and provide more case studies, then the finished product will be glorious.