User:Otterreef/Coral disease/TheSkyisBlue3 Peer Review

General info
Otterreef
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)

Here is my peer review

Lead
The lead has been updated in order to include more content on the background and history of the topic. First sentence is strong and concise providing a good overview of the topic. Provides more detail compared to the original lead and provides a good overview of further steps on the topic. Helps provide further insight into the articles contents and topics that may align with the given topic.

Content
Content expands upon what is already provided and is up-to-date on the topic. New sections are added that help provide information to the reader in understanding different factors on the topic and allows them to gain a deeper understanding of what is addressed. Content is presented very well and all content provided relates to the topic and provides good information.

Tone and Balance
Content provided has a good professional tone that does not portray any bias towards one end.

Sources and References
Sources are used in relevance with the provided content and are from reliable peer-reviewed sources. Links for the articles do work and the information provided has no plagiarism from sources and is used fairly.

Organization
Content is well-written at an academic level and is provided within appropriate sections. There are not errors in spelling or grammar throughout the article.

Images and Media
N/A

Overall Impressions
When looking at the changes made to the original it has truly helped make it a more informative article. The lead from the original is smaller and a little more lacking in content and the rewrite made helps it be more informative and provide more context to the topic at hand. The added sections help flesh out the article overall and provide good context to the content. When looking at the original article and reading the sections it is clear that the change in language makes the overall content more professional and makes it easier to understand what is being conveyed throughout the article.

When looking at the lead it has been expanded upon and provides better context for what is added throughout the article and helps readers understand the overall content. Definitely better written than the original and more professional language is used.

Stress Factors is a lot more concise in information and information that was irrelevant to the section was put under the proper header. Citations are well used throughout and I can gather the information of how this relates to the overall from this section. Minor double space in "makes it" but everything else looks good.

Pathogens from the original definitely needed rework looking at overall grammar but the section is well written and able to be understood with no confusing sentences. Information is broken up into paragraphs which makes it easier to follow what is being presented within a given paragraph. A good use of examples is within this section and despite the lack of information around some of the topics it is presented in a concise and scientific manner.

Identification is a new added section and lets the reader know about visible aspects to the diseases. Concisely written so the information is not dragging on and helps inform the reader about different signs. "This, however, does not always work" to me feels like a run-on sentence and you could either add this point to the previous sentence going into the next or use it at the beginning of the sentence. Some minor grammar changes in the first paragraph I see are "These signs show that corals have diseases which can also be caused by factors that are more environmental, and with an understanding of what cellular interactions are occurring it is difficult to diagnose." just to help the sentence flow easier and sound confusing when read through multiple times.

Resistance is another new section that provides understanding of ways corals may naturally have resistance. Less understood in the scientific so the information presented is concise and well written providing specific examples on the topic.

Distribution is very lackluster in the original article and the revision to it adds more information for a better understanding. The first two paragraphs are well written and expand on the information well and provide the reader with a good understanding of the distribution of naturally occurring coral diseases. The third paragraph feels very concise so maybe expanding on how these diseases specifically affect the community or how they are different in compared to the wild diseases unless they are well studied to be able to expand upon this.

Climate change is new section that helps expand upon the prevailing issue that climate changes plays on the coral communities. How climate change can affect these diseases was interesting to learn about and it is very well-written.

Conservation is a new section that was definitely needed because it is a relevant topic in todays world and is an important factor when considering disease and how this decimates populations. It is well written providing pertinent and important information on conservation and what is being done to help coral communities fight these diseases. When it comes to the research aspect perhaps a research subheading could be made and possibly expanded further on to show specific research and how its being carried out on these diseases and why it is relevant to the diseases.

The specific diseases are expanded upon and provides specific examples, expanding on the already provided examples from the original article and helps understand specific diseases that affect coral.

7 peer-reviewed sources are used and cited throughout the article with no plagiarism present.

Overall it is well-written, represents the topic well and provides more information, and it is written with better language and structure than the original article.