User:Mclash2547/Molecular ecology/Grundsh Peer Review

Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic?
'''The original starts with a sentence about Outbreeding Depression so I am assuming that is the section but the labelling was not present. The content does seem relevant to the topic.'''

•	What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative.
'''The article is very descriptive but doesn't seem to fully describe each of the components it brings up. The descriptions are very well written and seem to address the topic in a very professional description.'''

•	What overall adjustments do you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
'''I would simplify the article. There are certain claims like, "Inbreeding and outbreeding depression can occur at the same time" that don't seem to fit the overall narrative and aren't fully explained either. There are a lot of descriptions that don't seem to help me understand what outbreeding depression really is.'''

•	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know.
My article is not about ecology rather it is about genetics at a molecular level so there seems to be little ability to relate to my article.

•	Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information?
The articles are inaccessible off of campus so I have no way to verify this information.

•	Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work?
I am unable to access the links off of campus.

•	Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.
'''I found the citations to be confusing in the text. Rather it should have footnotes than having the entire link in the text.'''

== •	Student authors are responsible for all images on their page (even if not part of their revised subsection). Double check the original page to make sure images are acceptable and clearly described. See associated tutorial to review Wiki image requirements. Summarize your findings. == There are no images.

== •	Identify at least one additional reference that you think may contribute to the article. Explain why you think this article would benefit from the new information. Be sure to provide the reference in your write-up. == http://dx.doi.org.nuncio.cofc.edu/10.1111/evo.12203