User:Mereheterotroph/Aphanothece/Natpollock Peer Review

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


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

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: There was no lead to begin with, so the current lead is accurate to the content. It's a little overly detailed and uses words that I feel are above a regular person's level of knowledge, so (for lack of a better term: "dumbing it down" would be of use.

Content:

Morphology- change "can be differentiated" to "are differentiated". Is anathece the plural form? Spell out centimeter instead of "cm". Change the period in microhabitiat list to a comma. Move habitat list to habitat section.

Taxonomy- No recommendations. Whomever wrote this has excellent flow from sentence to sentence and could be used as an example for how the rest of the article should flow.

Ecology/habitat- Rewrite for clarity and flow.

Tone and Balance: Change titles to non-caps, it feels shouty. Overall tone is ok, only change I'd recommend is to use more common words and rephrase things to be understood by the common viewer.

Sources and References: Good sources and citations. No recommendations.

Organization: Good organization and flow from topic to topic in the article, not to great from sentence to sentence. Would suggest rephrasing/rewriting to improve flow.

Images and media: No new images/media, but with the length of the article I don't feel they're needed. No recommendations.

Overall impression: Excellent improvements, I'd rate 7/10 overall. Post recommended edits, 9/10.