User:Joeadunlap/Evolution of Cryptobiosis/BelleKahlua Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Joeadunlap


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Joeadunlap/Evolution of Cryptobiosis


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * User:Joeadunlap/Evolution of Cryptobiosis

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: I think the lead section was very good! You set up the subsections of your article well and it flowed nicely. I left a couple invisible comments mainly just to add links (if they are available) to terms that someone might not know and then I think a grammar one but overall I think the lead outlined the article well and was to the point.

Content: I thought the content was relevant to the topic as well as the subsections. I looked at the publication years of a lot of the sources and they all seem to be pithing the last 10ish years but that might be completely fine if there isn't a lot of new information out there. Also sometimes the older paper have the big ideas and so that too could be the possibility here. I think the content was watered down to a level where most could read and interpret the material which is a huge advantage.

Tone/Balance: I think the tone was neutral throughout the article. It didn't seem that the author was trying to persuade the readers in any direction.

Sources: I did leave a few invisible comments in areas where I wasn't sure if it was actually the authors thoughts or if it needed a citation but overall the material was cited correctly and the citations did work.

Organization: I think the article is organized well by the subheadings and that the information flows nicely. I loved that the author added photos to suppliment the text as well.

Overall it was a great article and after a few picky tweaks I think it will be fantastic!! Great job!