User:Fungus Consumer/Sporormiella/Snowboots11 Peer Review

General info
Fungus Consumer
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Fungus Consumer/Sporormiella
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Sporormiella

Evaluate the drafted changes
This article provides much improvement to the main article, which is a stub. The draft brings it to a full article. The lead has been expanded and updated with more accurate information.

The article content has been expanded and improved as well, and all seems to be relevant to the broader topic. 12 sources have been added to the article for a total of 17, and represent primary literature from the earliest characterizations of Sporormiella to contemporary studies and its use a paleontological/paleoecological proxy. The sections and subsections added make sense and contribute to a greater understanding of the topic. The content added is clearly written and relevant to the topic. There are a few instances of author opinion making it into the article, like with two uses of the word “unfortunately” regarding a subsequent fact about Sporormiella. Both should be removed, and the second instance (“Unfortunately for scientists and Sporormiella”) should be removed entirely. At the end of the article there is use of the phrase “red heron,” where I think the author meant to say “red herring.”

Two images added to the article are both well-captioned and sourced, and benefit the article overall. This is a well-researched, significant contribution to the Sporormiella article and I think after some minor edits is ready to go live.