User:Snowboots11/Glacial relict/Sara.n.york Peer Review

General info
User: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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

This appears to be a great addition to create a more comprehensive lead section. I think removing the "examples:" from the lead section was a good move. Further defining the term that this page is about in a clear and concise manor seems to work effectively. It could be beneficial to add a brief description of the additional sections that you have added to the article for readers to see what else will be included upon further reading.

Content

The "Origin of the term" section is a great addition to this page. You draw in a variety of scientist who are a part of the terms history and provide a variety of additional sources along with it. I would like to note that you mention the field is popularizing again and from my look at the citations the most recent one is from 2019 (I apologize if this is not entirely accurate). But, I am wondering if there are any additional sources that can be provided as example for this field beginning to rise again, possibly the addition of current/new studies around this topic to be linked etc.

Tone and Balance

I have found some changes that could be made to the tone within the article that may not fit wikipedia as smoothly as desired. I have underlined and italicized what sticks out to me with further explanation.

- "work exploring the glacial relict concept  blossomed  after lectures and a series of papers" I find the term blossomed to be an interesting word choice. Replacing with increased may be more professional and appropriate.

- "Immediate interest focused on ancient lakes host to  clearly unique species  assemblages compared to neighboring lakes (the example of Baikal is given)." How are they "clearly unique"? is this terminology used by a source? Is there further definition for this? This seems like an exaggerated claim that has some bias to it and could need some rewording/additional information.

- "in the  vastly influential  On the Origin of Species." While I of course agree with this statement as a fellow science oriented person, a claim with this tone could be seen as unprofessional within a wiki article. I would keep it straight to the facts and just state "in the On the Origin of Species" to be more safe.

Sources and References

There seems to be a great improvement to the included reference list compared to the original article. What I will bring attention back to again is the claim within the article that this topic is becoming more popular again and with that it would be good to see some more recent citations and evidence to support this claim.

As for sources, I am curious about if it is ok that you do not have references after each sentence and fact stated. I believe that they do coincide with the citation that follows a sentence or two after but this could be something to consider if someone looks at one of these statements and does not see where it originated from immediately.

Organization

I think that the breakdown between the lead section and the article body that you have changed to include the terms origin and a broader list of relict communities is very well organized and a great improvement to the page. There are a few sentences that appear to be rather long such as "Dítě et al. (2018) note that while the concept has had no set definition and lost its validity as a subject of study due to difficulties in obtaining empirical evidence for glacial relict status, the field is popularizing once again due to phylogeographical and paleoecological advancements that make it possible to directly assess relict-status. " I think if you are able to make this more clear and concise and possible split into multiple sentences it could flow a bit better.

Overall Impressions

This article has definitely been improved by your additional information. I particularly like the addition of the "Origin of the Term" and the "Relict Communities" sections that provide great historical context as well as examples to the readers. I think with the fix of some tone and some additional references this article is looking much improved from the original.