User:Lazypossum/Dead zone (ecology)/Mobamba 1098 Peer Review

The lead is not really there but from reading the expanded article content I can see what the articles topic is about.

The content added to the expanded article is related to the topic I like how the author included many examples of dead zone (ecology) however I think the author could even further include some definitions as well as the implications of dead zones as well as its significance.

The content added is neutral. Not all content added has a reference I'm assuming the author will eventually get that added in. The content is concise however there are some grammatical errors in the article that could be fixed.

I really like the images that have been added in the content of the article because they are laid out in a visibly appealing way.

I would say the content added improved the quality of the overall article by giving more examples in a way providing more support. however the areas I mentioned above where there could be some slight adjustments and the expanded article would be perfect.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)