User:Snowboots11/Glacial relict/Diderotsevenbillion Peer Review

General info
Snowboots11
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Snowboots11/Glacial relict
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Glacial relict

Lead
The lead is excellent, and a significant improvement over the lead/stub of the current article. It may be worth being slightly more precise with the terminology. In the second paragraph it's fairly clear that you're referring to a late-Pleistocene range, but there were many glacial periods during the Pleistocene and many species underwent significant range shifts. Probably best to refer to specific glaciations & transitions. The last sentence could also be revised - as written, the distinction you're drawing between true relicts and relict-resembling species is not clear.

Content / Organization
The content added is a substantial improvement on the existing article. The "Origin of the term" section might be better as a 'History' or 'History of the concept,' as you include information not solely relevant to the earliest use of the term. It may be useful to include some more detail about if/how the concept was relevant between the early 1900s and 2018.

Some small consistency/style things below:

In the lead, you say that a relict is a 'population of a species,' but later refer to 'species.' Probably more consistent to stick with 'population.'

I think there should be a citation after the Holmquist book you reference.

Probably don't need to qualify On the Origin of Species with "vastly influential."

'Baikal' should be Lake Baikal.

You write that Dítě et al. note that the concept has no set definition - but you give a definition in the lead. It is definitely worth acknowledging definition disagreements, but that point should probably be accompanied by some additional context.

"Central to the question" is not followed by a question.

Relict-status is kind of an unusual construction - unless it's common terminology, you might want to lose the hyphen or use a more straightforward phrase.

When you reference no-analog communities (regarding reindeer) - aren't the relicts supposedly in refugia that resemble their past environments? Might be worth clarifying.

Things that should/could have links to other wikipedia pages: Pleistocene; biogeographical; Darwin; On the Origin of Species; Baikal; phylogeographical; paleoecological; Iberian Peninsula.

Tone and Balance
There are no issues with tone or balance in your article.

Sources and References
Your sources and references have good coverage in terms of age, type of source, and topic. If they exist, it would be interesting to find sources discussing the relevance of this concept outside of Europe, though I understand that the article may be doomed to recapitulate the biases of the existing scholarship.

Images and Media
It could be cool to include some images - there are likely some illustrative public-domain photos of some of the species/environments you discuss.

Overall Impressions
Your additions are a massive improvement to the quality of this article - it's work to be proud of! There are still some places where it can improve, but my suggestions above should be considered recommended finishing touches on what is already a very solid piece of work.