User:Tmp1071/Populus tremuloides/Thea.sar Peer Review

General info
Tmp1071
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Tmp1071/Populus tremuloides
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Populus tremuloides:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

I think the present lead reflects the changes you drafted well. I think the opening sentence of the lead describes the topic of the article well. I think the lead is detailed, but it does not include details on some of the articles major sections. This includes the dieback and uses sections, maybe a small intro to these sections could be added if deemed necessary.

Content:

I think the content you drafted is definitely related to the subject, as you are building the ecology and dieback section of the original article. I think all of the content belongs and is relevant information that can be added to improve the original article.

Tone and Balance:

All of the drafted edits to the article are written in a neutral tone, there is no apparent bias in your writing.

Sources and References:

I think you cited your drafted changes well, and it is apparent where the information is coming from. All of your sources are current as well, and I went through all of the links and they are working. A lot of your sources are scientific articles which have been peer-reviewed, so because of this they most likely have been thoroughly researched and are reliable.

Organization:

I think your writing is clear, and easy to comprehend, in context it adds to the understanding of the section of the article. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.

Overall Impressions:

I think the information you drafted to add to the article is definitely relevant and adds to the original article. I think for the dieback section you add some more potential explanations as to why it is happening, which helps in building understanding.