User:Kait.Snow/Microfauna/Illiad5922 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
Lead

The lead while introducting the current major sections does not have a whole lot of new information from the article that is currently present. Your lead is very concise and to the point on what it discusses. All the information said is present in the article.

Content

All the added content is relevant and important to note. The information shown also seems up to date. The equity gaps does not seem relevant to this topic. The content however does seem sparse. This area could be greatly improved by adding more to the article itself.

Tone and Balance

The content addes does seem neutral and the author does a good job to remain objective about the topic at hand. There does not seem to be any viewpoints in this article and it reflects an equal presenting of ideas.

Sources and Refrences

The information cited seems a bit questionable. One source such as soil net .com I am unsure as to its credibility at all. ALso the cite from the national cancer institute does not seem the most important. The sentences that were copied from the previous article version have now also been cited to a diffrent source. The links the author use do work and most other then these two seem somewhat credible. I question why you choose not to use a lot of the sources the previous article did.

Orginization

The content is very easy to read and does seem well written. Its clear that the author knows this information to write it. The specific sections do seem to make sense and I do not know of ones that would be more suited. I also do not note and gramatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

The second image does seem helpful in understand the size scale at play. The first image I feel does not add or take away anything to the article. The captions present are okay though they could be improved. They are laid out visually appealing and I do belive they follow the copyright procedure.

Overall impressions

The article feels diffrent rather then more complete. The draft scraps a lot of work from the original that I do not believe all has to be. It also is missing a lot of content, the article itself feels very short. The strengths of the draft is that the habitat section is improved a bit and the picutres added do seem more relevant to the topic at hand. However this article could be greatly improved by adding more content to it. Perhaps secions on diffrent types of microfauna?