User:Thunderbear65/Developmental plasticity/LE4rSt0966 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Thunderer65


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * N/A


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Developmental plasticity

Evaluate the drafted changes
Rather than focusing simply on the changes already made, I feel it be more productive to touch on both what is edited and what I believe this article could benefit from in terms of potential additions.

Lead: Concisely summarizes the topic at hand. While it does not have a a description of the article's major sections, I do not think that it is necessary in this particular scenario. Overall a good lead section for the article.

Content: The content observed in the article appears to be relevant to the topic, and answers the main questions that would arise while doing mild research into the subject, suiting the needs of the casual reader. There are some recent additions of information, but while glancing at the works cited section there are some articles that are rather dated, observing some that dated back to 1998/1999. There may be some more up to date resources now available to keep the article relevant and caught up on more modern findings. What this article could benefit from are perhaps more examples of developmental plasticity in organisms and nature, perhaps a dedicated portion of the article if deemed applicable.

Sources and References: There are some sections where citations are sparse, and perhaps more could be added to reinforce that information there. An entire section has only one citation. While it is not impossible to conclude all that information rom one source, it may be better practice to pull from multiple sources for a section. As stated above, some sources were a little dated and could use some updating in that regard. There are noted primary sources, which I feel are permitted given the nature of the article but I believe secondary are more preferred. I observed a textbook was cited recently, that it wonderful.

Organization: Overall seemed rather good.

Images and Media: No images currently exist on the article, but that is not inherently a bad thing. Perhaps some visual aids may help understanding, they may not be necessary. Adding some would only help.

Overall: Well done, aside from minor critiques this article has potential and the work on it thus far appears to be very good.