User:KenKardashin/List of Ice Age species preserved as permafrost mummies/Zoe3440 Peer Review

General info
KenKardashin
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:KenKardashin/List of Ice Age species preserved as permafrost mummies
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):List of Ice Age species preserved as permafrost mummies

Evaluate the drafted changes
I think you did a very good job on this! You have a ton of sources and it seems like a lot of work went into it! There are a few wording/grammar things that I think would make your article clearer. Changing "most have gone extinct" to "most went extinct" might make the sentence flow better, and "too" should be "to" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead. The first paragraph might also be helped out by a citation or two.

I'm not sure if the second paragraph belongs in the lead; it might be better off as its own section in the article body. I think that the sentence "These mummies serve as crucial insights into the physiology and life histories of Pleistocene organisms this is due to how well the process preserves the specimens" should either be two sentences (period after organisms), have the words "this is" removed, or have the second half of the sentence after the word organisms removed. In general in that section, I'm not really sure what you mean by "the process", and especially what "the process is so complete" means, so I think that section could use a bit of re-wording for clarification. I think you could take out "that you could with modern tissues" to make that sentence more concise. I also noticed that your sources mention hyenas, which aren't listed, but I'm not sure whether this was intentional or not. The source also talked a lot about scavenging, so something like "feeding dynamics" or "trophic dynamics" might be more accurate than "predator prey dynamics".

In terms of sources, reference 2 might be better if you cited the original research paper. It seems like you already used it as citation 4, so I think you could probably just replace 2 with another reference to that one. It also seems like numbers 5 and 20 are the same source. Source number 21 might not be super reliable; it might be better to find another source for the frozen ground squirrel.

Overall, good job and I'm impressed that you created that whole article!