User:Kait.Snow/Microfauna/Eyeball7878 Peer Review

General info
Kait.Snow
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Kait.Snow/Microfauna
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Microfauna

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead has been updated to reflect added sections like habitat, role and phyla. It also includes a strong introductory sentence that describes the topic. The lead could be updated to refrence the many phyla or a reference to diversity that would refer to the phyla section.

Tone and tense seem to be good. Personal bias is absent from added content.

Content added is relevant to the topic including the added phyla and restructuring of habitat and role sections. A few of the related sources could be stronger or could refrence the articles current refrences. Several appear to be good, current sources that contain newly included content. Content added is well written and reorganizes original articles content to be more up to date. Also updates to the phyla section to include more phyla and reformate section makes it much clearer to readers.

Do you need to add the related concepts section? If so could it be minimized as it seems to draw away from the topic of the article.

You could also look at adding more internal links in the habitat and role sections. You could also think about adding another picture to the phyla section to showcase diversity of the many types.