User:Jjherlan/Ecological inheritance/ClosingtheGap Peer Review
 | Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
Additional Resources |
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing?
James Herlan
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Jjherlan/Ecological inheritance
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Ecological inheritance
Evaluate the drafted changes
[edit]The article provides a solid definition of ecological inheritance and reinforces that definition throughout the article. It draws an important distinction between genetic and ecological inheritance and considers other similar ideas (ecosystem engineer, niche construction).
I think the article should include some historical information in the introduction (e.g., when was the term coined, who coined it, what idea did it replace). Also, within the introduction, the author includes multiple defintions of ecological inheritance on multiple scales. I think this is an important point to make, but may be too complex for a lay audience. I would suggest to make clear that ecological inheritance is thought to operate at different scales without quoting multiple definitions.
In the "Examples", I like the inclusion of earthworm evolutionary history, though I would drop the initial reference to Darwin as it increases the complexity of the paragraph. I think the reference to Darwin could be included near the introduction as way to bring historical context to the idea. If possible within this section, I would add information to the earthworm example.
I think the most important thing that can be done to improve the article is to adjust the overall structure of the information. I think the sections "Ecological inheritance, ecosystem engineering, and niche construction" and "Genetic inheritance vs. ecological inheritance" could be assimilated to the introduction and reduced down in size. A sentence like "Ecological inheritance differs from concepts like ecosystem engineering and niche construction because..." could summarize much of the information included in the paragraph and same goes for the section regarding genetic inheritance. The paragraphs for examples and modern synthesis should be kept. I would expand on the modern synthesis section.
I like the inclusion of a real world example, which I might be able to include in my wiki article. An example can make things much easier to digest.