User:Ungulate01/Extinct in the wild/Cat241912 Peer Review

General info
@Ungulate01
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ungulate01/Extinct in the wild
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Extinct in the wild

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * In the lead section, one thing I would recommend would be to add more insight behind the reintroduction section of your article. It mentions habitat loss at the end of the first section and I see you briefly touch on climate change being a result of difficulty for habitats to be restored in your reintroduction section - another subsection of difficulties of habitat restoration worth adding context for could be land-use change scenarios that are caused by humans

Content


 * All content added is relevant to your topic as well as having reliable and current sources within 10 years was great!


 * As I mentioned for your reintroduction section think it could be worthwhile to add context around human land-use effects on habitat restoration for endangered or EW species
 * An additional subsection to consider would be adding more context around how the absence of EW species effect their native ecosystems


 * I liked how you added more context about the IUCN green status


 * Liked your utilization of hyperlinks


 * "Examples" section could use a little bit of shaping in regards to placement in the article. Potentially move the EW species list to the end of the article and add the tidbit about the Pinta Island tortoises and supporting paragraph as a new beginning section "background" or incorporate it to reintroduction section

Tone and Balance


 * I think you did a great job of adding neutral content as well as more reintroduction success stories, as well as explaining perceived notions about using smaller populations for captive breeding efforts and effective population sizes.

None of your sections added appear over-represented

Sources and References


 * All sources incorporated are reliable and thoroughly embedded throughout in relevant sections


 * All are current journal articles published within the last 10 years

Organization


 * Reorganize current "examples" section


 * Otherwise good overall organization and flow

Images and media


 * Good use of media provided by previous publisher elaborating on IUCN list of at risk species


 * Liked how you embedded imagery throughout embedded links providing further context

Overall


 * Overall did a great job of incorporating context EW species success stories and current trials of reintroduction. The context added, adds a better foundation for existing article and with minor touches to the lead, reintroduction, and examples section I believe this will be a strong article with reliable sources of factual and relating information.