User:Pago240/Gap analysis (conservation)/Danimilkweed Peer Review

General info
(provide username) I am reviewing Amanda Park's Gap analysis sand box draft.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Pago240/Gap analysis (conservation)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Gap analysis (conservation)

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 addition of the citizen science category holds a significant definition to the topic of interest. Addition of examples and studies provide an insight on how the process is worked on first hand, how other scientists can work on it as a lead example of what to do and what to work on. It also provides credibility for gap analysis as it is a real work of science. It makes it appear more complete with first hand contributions and just how other citizens and volunteers can add on to these parts. Sources appear relevant as well.