User:Zoe3440/Mid-Holocene Hemlock decline/Baum019 Peer Review

General info
Zoe3440
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Zoe3440/Mid-Holocene Hemlock decline
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):I don't think this wiki existed prior to now.

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:


 * Your lead is clean and concise. I think it broadly covers the scope of this wiki article. The only thing that I would tweak is the first sentence, it is very strong but then "across the tree's range" makes it seem like it was tossed in there last second. Even just leaving it as "The mid-Holocene hemlock decline is a sudden decrease in Eastern Hemlock populations noticeable in fossil pollen records that occurred approximately 5,500 years ago." would be okay. If you can find a way to rewrite it to include that last bit that is okay too! (remember constructive criticism is good to start thinking about your writing, but if you don't agree then you don't HAVE to change it!)

Content:


 * In reading the article I think you did a good job of covering the basics of the topic chosen. I don't think there is anything that is out of place. Since you did create this wiki page there may be some gaps or things missing, but I think you did a good job of populating it!

Tone and Balance:


 * In the causes section I see you are trying to show several perspectives and not say just one or another is the true cause. However, how you wrote it makes it seem not super neutral. Just stating things instead of bringing in words like "other authors" would make it stronger writing.
 * Wiki articles are just stating facts, not trying to lay ground work for someone picking a side. It is hard to write like that, but in this case it is the best thing to do.
 * The last sentence in the causes section is also not neutral because it is saying "depending on their views" which is telling the reader that some research may be dependent on these views. You could do without the sentence and probably be fine. Otherwise something like, "Future researchers may try to use these (debated) events as insight into how modern forests may respond to pathogen outbreaks or to anthropogenic climate change." Something like that sounds more neutral because it is stating a fact.
 * I like the sections otherwise and you are doing great so far!

Sources:


 * Your sources are all good and from academic articles, so you have a good start there. The thing I noticed most about the sources was how you cited them throughout the paper. In academic writing we tend to put the authors name and year and then the sentence ("Davis et al. 1981 ..."), but in a Wiki article that isn't the structure that is used. I would rewrite some of these sentences to remove that style of citing sources.

Organization:


 * I stated this in the sources section, but I think the thing that is bringing you down right now is the writing style. Getting out of that shell of academic writing or writing papers for classes is hard, but a wiki needs to be stating just facts. The lead and post-decline dynamics were well done with that idea! (The second sentence in the post-decline dynamics section is quite long so I would try and break that up if you can.)
 * The main section that I would work on is the causes section. Some parts of sentences are not needed (ex: some relatively earlier papers on this decline). Any sentence that is stating a source should be changed to stating the fact desired and then adding the citation afterward.
 * Otherwise, spelling is good and the sections are split up well!

Images:


 * There are no images at all. I think inserting a picture of a hemlock would be good for visualization purposes (it can even be the same picture used on the Tsuga Canadensis page if that is the only picture that is usable in the wikicommons)!

New Articles Criteria:


 * In looking at the new article criteria it would appear you cover a broad range of the requirements. The things I am noticing is does this article link to others so it is easily discoverable? (I honestly don't know how to check this though)
 * You only have links to 2 other articles as well, I would maybe link to other ones such as "insect pathogen outbreaks", "pollen fossil records", or "pollen records", "spruce budworm", "macrofossil", "anthropogenic", and "climate change". This makes it easier for the reader to direct to those sources if they don't already know what the word means. Many of them are relatively easy terms for us since we are used to hearing them, but others might not understand them.

Overall Impressions:


 * Good job so far! I think everything I stated is kind of around the same idea. Mostly changing the formatting of those sources in the causes section, which also would change the writing style. Doing more linking of wiki articles throughout would be good too. Some rewriting of sentences with stronger words would be the other thing, but other than that you did good! Remember if you don't agree with a critique it isn't necessary to change!
 * Good luck on the rest of the semester.