User:KirstenSW821/Neanderthal anatomy/WordlyWaleed Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(KirstenSW821)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KirstenSW821/Neanderthal_anatomy&veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&redirect=no


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Neanderthal anatomy

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 for many of the improving/adding sections to the already existing paragraphs were good, Including the topics for European environmental effect and teeth. For the infections article and the environmental change, a change can be made to the existing article to Better allow for the transition to work between the old paragraph and the new one being added. The lead is short and concise but could be worded shorter to not add too many unnecessary words to overcomplicate the simple message.

Content is relevant and is applied very well, it can add more information if that is available.

The tone is balanced and very fair but the extra words like adding too many “also” and “as” which are words that make sense but feel like they are only trying to fill the count. It could be cleaner and sound more attractive to readers in the wiki format.

Sources all check out, explaining that there are differences between modern humans and Neanderthals.