User:Ty.olkkola/Betula populifolia/Tmp1071 Peer Review

General info
(provide username) Ty.olkkola
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ty.olkkola/Betula populifolia - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Betula populifolia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(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.)

Your article looks very good! Your rearrangement of the words and sentences make the article much easier to read compared to the original. You included the basic information about the species, as is proper for a Wikipedia article. Your sources are plentiful, and after a quick skim of the References section, seems to be from reliable sources.

The only issue that stood out to me was this sentence: "It is commonly confused for paper birch by means of its bark, but it is differentiable as gray birch bark does not exfoliate (peel) as readily as paper birch." It just seemed a little wordy and could be arranged better. I also could like to see a sentence differentiating it from quaking aspen, as you mentioned that they're confused for each other but then never expanded upon this idea.

Other than that, great job!