User:HabitsofEelz/Nature writing/Cara.begley Peer Review

This article looks very well edited. The author did a very good job of narrowing down the introduction paragraph to be more concise and more understandable. It does well briefly setting up modern day natural writing back to the pioneer naturalist. It is much more together than the original intro paragraph and flows very nicely. The author did a nice job of chronologically updating the pioneers section and made it much more readable. The content seems up-to-date and the sources are dispersed throughout the pioneers section. I would check the citations section and make sure the in text citations are appropriately formatted, because some are accessed through blue links and others seem to just be black.

All the information belongs in the article, and I think outlining the major contributors to the nature writing stage was a really great addition. The examples of many works was good, and the chronological structure was very well done. All the added information is neutral and there is no obvious bias in the writing. It is written for the sake of providing information, and includes the necessary viewpoints for the subject.

The organization is very well done, and I think the sources look good. There may need to be more source throughout the "20th century" section, but it is more a list of books and articles so this could be passed over. Again, just making sure that the sources are correctly cited is the only suggest I have. The sources seem properly cited until about number 5. After 5 the sources start to not be linked. It could also be beneficial to add some photos or excerpts from the nature writings to demonstrate the type of writing. The body paragraphs are very well set up, and these could be easily woven within.

Great job! This was a good read.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)