User:Heathadr/Anchialine pool/Breitkrl Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Heathadr and team.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Heathadr/Anchialine_pool?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Anchialine pool

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article begins with a strong, concise definition of anchialine pool. The introductory paragraphs, three in total, do a good job at summarizing the important and distinguishing characteristics of these pools. The next two content sections, ecology and biology, overlap quite a bit in terms of content. These two sections could be grouped into one, in order to minimize repeating of information. For example, the last paragraph in "biology" mentions "geochemical parameters" that affect the biology and ecology of this system, then expanding on these parameters and their influence, which is largely ecological in nature. Figures have yet to be added, but editors have indicated where figures, and sometimes even which ones, will be included. The geology content is quite comprehensive and well separated into distinct "formations". Each subsection under geology introduces examples from real systems, grounding the theory in reality. Concerning the hydrology process, there are sentences that could flow a bit better. For example, the first sentence, "the salinity of the anchialine pool majorly decides the species in it", is a bit strange to read. Maybe the editors could refer to "anchialine pools" as more than one (making in plural), and then switch up the terminology used in the last half of the sentence, perhaps "has a major impact on the species that are present". I think that the bulleted list under Hydrology is a clear way to present a list of information. Still concerning the Hydrology section, some terms can be replaced with words that sound more professional - i.e. "scientists need to come up with" changed to "the scientific community should decide upon".

Sources seem current and reflect the literature available to the editors. A range of topics are covered. Again, some sentences in the concluding paragraphs can flow a bit better. A thorough edit that includes a read through will help with this. Overall, content seems largely neutral, and article is definitely more complete and well-balanced content wise. I would suggest changing some terminology to come off as more professional, and make sure the sentences flow, i.e. the clauses aren't in a clunky or unclear order.