User:Gmagsino1/Flora of the Philippines/Djronkus20 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gmagsino1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gmagsino1/Flora of the Philippines


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Flora of the Philippines

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.)

Lead
The lead seems to be in the process of being updated and I see some interesting and well sourced contributions. I think there may be spots where you go a bit too deep rather than staying general, so you should be wary of that. There is a succinct introductory sentence that discusses the diverse array of the Malasian flora, which you should probably mention in the body. So far however, there isn't much of an article yet so I think that should be your next focus

Content
Content added so far is relevant, but I wouldn't say it is completely up to date since one of your sources dates back to 1925, but I cannot really comment on that since I have no idea as to how often research studies arise on this topic. I think you go into dipterocarps pretty quickly, which is good if they are the primarily type of flora in the Philippines, but I would make sure to at least imbed a link to the dipterocarps wiki so that people unfamiliar with that species can learn more.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral without any claims that appear to be heavily biased towards one way or another. This is to be expected since it is a scientific article about flora in the Philippines. I would be careful to make sure not to sound like you're arguing something because in your third text addition, you use the phrase "demonstrates a connection" which sounds like you're trying to draw a conclusion in some way.

Sources and References
All the content is cited and all the available links do work. I would assume all the content is accurately reflected from your sources since you wrote a research paper on the topic using these sources. As mentioned earlier, the biggest concern would be the date of publication for some of your sources.

Organization

 * The content so far is concise and easy to read, but the lack of any subheadings after the lead makes the page a bit lacking still. There are no grammatical/spelling errors and I cannot really comment on how well-organized the work so far is since there is not much to the article.