User:NolaMo2/Anolis carolinensis/Lillycazayoux Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * NolaMo2


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NolaMo2/Anolis_carolinensis?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Anolis carolinensis

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 header feels very appropriate for the information that you're adding and will fit well into the wikipedia page. I think in this article you provide evidence to the fact that adaptations themselves have occurred which is good, however you don't really mention what those adaptations are. It feels a bit unclear what the winter storms and climate changes did. Maybe provide a bit more insight on what genetic distance is. I think its most important that you go into more detail about the actual adaptations. You have it under adaptations for cold environments, that makes me realize I should say desert environments in my article. I think maybe the sentence that begins with Genomic could go before the sentence that begins with temperature, as it feels like the genomic sentence is evidence and the temperature sentence is a conclusion to that evidence. The length is appropriate and isn't too wordy. I think it feels a bit like trying to convince reader about adaptations because an explanation of the adaptations doesn't follow the claim that there are adaptations exist. However, the language is very neutral. The references are not listed at the bottom of the page. So the facts need to be followed with a citation. Thus I don't know about uneven reliability, uneven usage, or if stated in the reference.