User:Rca001/Theropod Growth Rates/Natedavino Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rca001


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rca001/Theropod Growth Rates


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N/A

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

Good. Explains essential background and terminology, then succinctly summarizes the sections of the article. Not so specific that the rest of the article is redundant, but is direct about the information in the article. The section header says "non-avian" but the article title doesn't, are you going to be talking about avian growth rates? If you are then I guess this isn't really a lead, in which case consider this to be an extension of "Content".

Content:

Very good. You're thorough in representing multiple examples/elements of your topics (for example you give several examples of methods of estimating growth rates, with an equal focus on each and an honest appraisal of their strengths and weaknesses). You also illustrate the information with examples in the last section which is very good. I think it would be a good idea to link over to other wikipedia articles for certain terms/ideas that non-biologists/layman users might not know. Beyond that, I think frequent linking is good to stimulate users' investigation; even if they know what the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event is, having a link to it facilitates further research and therefore better understanding.

Tone/Balance:

Very strong. You describe things with detail without getting bogged down in jargon. As mentioned previously you give equal attention to different ideas within sections.

Sources/References:

References are good quality. I think you should throw some references into the beginning of the lead even though those things are well accepted and well known in the world of evolutionary biology.

Organization:

Sections seem appropriate to me and the sections stay on-topic. Depending on how specific you plan on getting with this article I think some good potential future sections might be specific sections on findings of growth rates for specific clades of theropods. I'm curious what other sections you have planned?