User:Abihoover/Thirteen-lined ground squirrel/Tracha3 Peer Review

1.First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?


 * The author delivered the topic well and added information to help the readers understand the physiology of hibernating squirrels. The structure of the article was also good. The 2nd source followed the 1st source, which made the draft flow.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?


 * Only, if it’s possible:  try to break up the sentences, so the readers won’t feel like it too much to take in.

3.What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?


 * Mentioned in answer #3

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?


 * no, I didn’t find anything applicable to my own article.

5. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Specifically, does the information they are adding to the article make sense where they are putting it?


 * The article doesn’t provide a section for physiology (hibernation physiology). In my opinion, creating a new section of physiology and adding it after the description section seems like a good fit.

6. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?


 * In my opinion, the draft doesn’t contain any unnecessary information and the length of it is fine. The information given isn’t off topic.

7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?


 * No, the draft only includes relevant physiology information about squirrels. Doesn’t try to convince the reader.

8. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."


 * I’m not sure if the phrase “special physiology” in the first sentence would be considered not neutral. If it isn’t neutral, it’s probably best to remove special from the article.

9. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?


 * Yes, the statements have a reliable source provided.

10. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.


 * The statements in the draft has an equal amount of information for each source. The draft is balanced well.

11. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!


 * The statements are accurate.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)