User talk:Student1254/Acrotelm

Peer review
Lead section

The first sentence of the lead does a good job providing a concise and easy to understand definition. The rest of the lead section has some good information, but it seems like it's not really an overview of the article as a whole. It might be more helpful to make the rest of the lead part of the body of the article and provide a more general overview in the lead. Also, it might be helpful to provide some context for "ditching" and wikilink to articles for aerobic and anaerobic. Also unlink to catotelm since this article doesn't exist yet.

Structure

Right now, you have three headings, "Article Draft", "See also" and "References" and a subheading titled "Traits". It could be helpful to change "Traits" to a heading. Using more headings and subheadings would make the concepts more clear to the reader and better organize information. Your pictures are good and help with visual understanding.

Balanced Coverage

The use of different sources is balanced and covers different perspectives adequately. There are no unsupported conclusions drawn. Everything in the article is on topic and aligned with scientific articles.

Neutral Content

The article maintains a very neutral tone, not using too negative or positive phrases. The language used is consistent with wikipedia's aim to provide objective information. In the traits section, the phrase "Where there is extraordinary geological vacillation" could be more neutral if "extraordinary" was changed. Perhaps "extensive" could be a good replacement.

Reliable Sources

The two review articles are good sources, and almost everything in the article cites these two article so that is good. The first source which is cited in the lead is a broken link, so it would be best to remove that source as it is no longer relevant. Then you can see if the two other sources support that statement as well. While the article does rely on only two sources, that is understandable as information might be limited on this subject and they are review articles so they cover the topic broadly.

Good job with your article!

Sbuett (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)