User:Michael3468/Biological dispersal/AllenCamp28 Peer Review

General info
MBHeavyMetal, Michael3468, PrincessAnna27
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Michael3468/Biological dispersal
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Biological dispersal

Evaluate the drafted changes
{| class="wikitable" Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:
 * Information_icon4.svg
 * Peer review

Lead
The first lead prior to the edits I am seeing from this group was overall pretty comprehensive. the only thing I would add is that the last chunk of the lead is pretty specific and I do not know if that part is necessary. The edit the team made which talks about limiting factors was a great edition to the lead because not only was it a short two sentences but it was a great introduction to a pretty big chunk of the wiki page. Limiting factors when it comes biological dispersal is a very important subject matter and it is even a big part of the article so it was responsible to add that bit.

Guiding questions:

Content
The idea of adding the Urban environments portion to the page is a very good idea the only thing I would say is that it either needs to be expanded on by a good amount or that it can be added to another section. There is already a section named environmental constraints and maybe this section can be transformed into something that is more inclusive of an urban ecology lens and the mentioning of urban environments. the motile animals section is also pretty short and it feels like more can be added especially through and urban ecology lens.

Tone and Balance
The tone being used is very matter-a-fact. There are really no biases or any agenda being put forward in the article as a whole. The information that is being given to the reader is all unbiased and just information from sources without any one view point being overrepresented. the only thing that might worry me is the usage of the word 'limited'. The editors might see it as too negative and want an alternative.

Sources and References
The sources that are being used in the groups work are all from journals of science which is really good to see. It is also work from across many different cities around the world and not just one side of the hemisphere. They are very good sources and I'm glad to see how they are being used and reworded. The existing article also uses a large array of material from across the globe.

Organization
The organization of the work thus far is very clear and concise. It is easy to read and there are clear separations between subject matter.

Images and Media
I think this wiki can benefit from any amount of images or videos that you guys would like to include that pertain to your subject. There is a lack of images which opens the door for u guys to add your own.

Overall impressions
Again I am very impressed with the amount of work that has been added especially because it is great work so far. The sources are excellent and the content that you guys have generated are very new and welcoming to the wiki page. The only thing I would consider is mending the environmental aspects you guys are talking about to the already existing environmental portion that exist. Other than that I am existed to see where this wiki page goes with your guys contribution.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources
Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }