User:Aleclo1/Arabian sand gazelle/Docindy01 Peer Review

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.)

1.     The article does well with citing its sources with the statements. There were not any unsourced statements. During the review, it was interesting to learn about how size differences could affect how animals can adapt to desert environments. The subject was a little unclear because it mentioned a study involving the Arabian Oryx when the article that the author is editing is about Arabian Sand Gazelles.

2.     The changes that I would suggest that the author apply to the article is starting off with a lead that clearly states what the article will be about. It was confusing whether or not the author wanted to create two or three articles to add on to the article that he/she will edit or if it was going to be one article about the adaptation of desert environments for sand gazelles with size and heterothermy underneath it. These changes would be an improvement to the article because it would present the article is a clear way for the readers to understand. I would also suggest capitalizing the word “during” in the second part of the article.

3.     The most important thing that the author could do to improve the article would be to have better transitions from one topic to the next and clearly present the information in a way to introduce the topics that he/she will be discussing.

4.     The article had links to the references used so that readers can click on it and go look at the reference right away. That could be applicable to my article as well so that readers can just click and go straight to the reference used instead of having to type it in and search finding it.

5.     The sections are organized by the topic it is discussing about such as size and heterothermy, but it is unclear if they will be in the same article, or will it be two different ones because if it will be in one article or topic then transitions from one topic to the next would make the information presented clearer for the reader to understand and follow.

6.     Each sections length is equal to one another, but the topic is about Arabian Sand Gazelles and the author discussed about Arabian Oryx as well so that was a little off topic unless the author wanted to compare the two animals and state that there was a study or research involved between the two.

7.     The article does not try to persuade or convince any reader of anything. The author is just presenting statements and backing it up with citations.

8.     There are no words or phrases that do not feel neutral.

9.     Most of the statements in the article are connected to a reliable source such as journal articles.

10.  There are two statements attributed to a source and three statements attributed to another source.

There were no unsourced statements in the article that I could not find cited. There was not a reference section, so I would suggest having one