User:JulianaL123/Carcinology/Scientist.alg.4 Peer Review

General info
JulianaL123
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:JulianaL123/Carcinology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Carcinology

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: No edits to lead

Content: no changes content wise

Tone and Balance: neutral tone and no bias perspectives

Sources and References:

1.Previous source; not part of edits

2. Link works and takes viewer to a reliable page. Full text is not accessible but the details to locate the book and methods of request are available via the linked webpage. The work is recent and credible.

3.Link works and takes to a reliable page of an online scientific journal. Full text is not accessible due to pay wall, but abstract is provided and its a credible source. The work is recent as well.

Organization:

No content added to change organization.

Images and Media:

No images added.

Overall Impression:

I only noticed the added sources, but let me know if I missed any other edits.

The added sources were great; credible and very recent in science years!

The article still feels very empty. Maybe think about adding a section for prominent scientist in the field? Or overview some recent research? Or add pictures of the species of the listed disciplines? There are many different places to add to to make the article a little fuller in scope.