User:Sweendog8/Critical habitat/Ashley.Galdamez Peer Review

General info
(Sweendog8)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sweendog8/Critical habitat
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Critical habitat

Evaluate the drafted changes
This essay is well-organized and unbiased. The hyperlinks function properly, but, the final bullet point reference, located below, appears to be non-functional, perhaps try and fix the link issue. Incorporating additional information enhances the article's points and fosters a more comprehensive understanding. Compared to the first draft of the piece, it appears that it has been cleaned up and now reads in a manner that is more objective and deliberate. The addition of relevant court cases is great, if possible add one or two more. The original article needs editing on the considerations content section, on the section that says clarification needed, to clarify and perhaps include an objective example. I can see some sections that are intended to be added are not yet started, but they seem to create a broader view of the act. I anticipate their completion as the additions added enhance the article and strengthen it.


 * Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. (1973, December 21). 87 Stat. 884 - Endangered Species Conservation Act. [Government]. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg884

, (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.)