User:Lonetigershark/Urban wildlife/Tylerrichmond Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lonetigershark


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Urban wildlife


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article includes a lead section at the beginning. This section broadly described how urban wildlife occurs and what percentage of animals inhabit urban/suburban areas. The lead section has also been edited to better resemble the changes made in the body of the article. As I mentioned before, the opening sentence gives a broad, yet descriptive viewpoint of urban wildlife that clearly shows the main focus. Brief descriptions of some sections were included as well. The added content has relevance to the paper and is up-to-date given the reverence list. The edits do a great job of connecting the paper better and provide greater overall organization of ideas. I can not identify any areas that seem to be biased or lean towards a certain opinion. Links included in the article are functional and provide relevant current information. Content that has been added mixes in well with the original article and contains no grammatical errors as far as I can tell. Overall, I believe that the addition of information by the user has improved the reading of the article. The biggest strength of the added content appears to be it's organizational impacts.