User:Unwisedragon838/Local extinction/Brprate Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Unwisedragon838


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Unwisedragon838/Local extinction
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Local extinction

Lead
The lead is somewhat short, but still was able to explain what local extinction is and what causes it. It does not include anything about the "Conservation" section, so maybe adding just a sentence about conservation efforts in the lead would be helpful. Another option may be to expand on reintroduction efforts that were mentioned in the Lead in the "Conservation" section. I think the changes you added to the article are still covered in the Lead, so no need to add anything for that.

Content
The content is relevant to the topic and seems up to date. I was honestly really confused in the "Conservation" section and had to read it multiple times because I thought it was going to talk about conservation efforts (such as the reintroduction method mentioned in the Lead) in place to prevent local extinctions, but it did not. Instead, most of it was just listing the crocodile and black rhino example, which I feel like should go into the section titled "Local Extinction Events" instead. However, I liked that the "Conservation" section listed some organizations involved in assessment efforts. I think it would be useful to find even more organizations and talk about their success stories regarding the conservation of organisms. I know you did not write that part, so sorry for focusing so much on that, but I think the information you have personally added so far is really good and contributes nicely to the article.

Tone and Balance
There are no issues with tone. No sources are overused and there is really nowhere to be biased.

Sources and References
I looked over your sources, and they seem reliable and the information you took from them is stated within the articles. One source is kind of old ( from 1949), but other than that it seems fine.

Organization
Organization is great everywhere except for "Conservation" section, which I already talked about earlier. Again, I really think it would make more sense to either 1) move the alligator and black rhino example within that section to "Local Extinction Events" or 2) explain what conservation efforts were in effect to try and prevent their local extinctions to keep then in that section. Also, I think it would make more sense to make the "IUCN subpopulation and stock assessments" section a subsection under the "Conservation" section instead of it being it's own independent section. This is just because the "Conservation" section already started to talk about IUCN, so making it subsection where the subject is expanded on makes more sense in my opinion. Everything else makes sense where it is. In your edit about New Zealand, there is a grammar error. It reads, "Heat waves can lead to local extinction in New Zealand (2017-2018) there were hot summers of 18.8 degrees Celsius." The "there were" does not make sense here. The best edit I can think of is changing it to "where there are." This way, the "there" now makes sense and the verb is now present tense, which would mean New Zealand still experiences these average summer temperatures (if that is what you meant to mean). In your Lagoa, Brazil edit, you are missing a set of commas. One needs to go before the word "like" and then after "rendalli." In your Glaciation edit, you put a comma at then end of the first sentence instead of a period. You also need a comma after the phrase "During this period."

Images and Media
None

Overall Impression
It is obvious that this article just has not been added to a lot by anyone. However, I think this is an interesting topic and could be expanded on very easily. Your edits are great so far and contribute good information. Keep up the good work, and I hope this helped!