User:Lhi1001/Mendelian inheritance/HabitsofEelz Peer Review

General info
Lhi1001
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)

The "History" section in which sources were added looks good overall. I did notice a few points in the section that it seemed as though sources should be implemented. For example, the first few sentences of the second paragraph, which talk about why Mendel's findings were initially ignored, is not attached to a source- maybe add one here if possible.

The content added was relevant to the topic. I would just recommend avoiding language like calling Punnett squares "useful tools" because I think that could be interpreted as a slightly biased statement. It might sound more formal and encyclopedic to change that sentence to something like "A Punnett squares is a genetic tool" to be as neutral as possible. I would also work on improving grammar such as "tree-like" instead of "tree like" and "ebb" instead of "eb" (both under the Pedigrees section).

The sources for this article look good. They seem to be working and relevant to the information they follow. I think this article is headed in a good direction and the change made are improving its quality.