User:AloofCanine72/How Human Infrastructure Impacts Birds’ Ecosystem/Eisha Afzal Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: AloofCanine72


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AloofCanine72/How_Human_Infrastructure_Impacts_Birds’_Ecosystem&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * This group is writing a new article, thus no current version of the article 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.)

The lead section of the article: "Studies has shown that light pollution is a factor that has contributed to bird-building collisions.

Not only do studies show for light pollution but also windows are involved in bird-building collisions. "

I think that these sentences sound persuasive, as it would pull the reader to one side. The use of "studies have shown" does not make the lead section neutral instead I think it should just highlight the points of the article with neutrality.

"The central idea for the article is to show that"

I think this sentence is not necessary, the other part of the sentence can be left by it self.

But overall I think that the lead is concise and it is not overly detailed.

Content: the content added is relevant to the topic. The content is up to date, the lead section talked about the species that are in danger of going extinct, the species which were vulnerable to the collision were mentioned but adding information about the number of species which are about to go extinct can be added.

I think the introduction is well written as the route which was taken by the birds is well described. The buildings are described reaching the clouds and I think a picture of that description should be added to enhance the experience of someone reading the article and giving them a clear understanding of how it would look.

"But other research articles show more cities having similar effects such as Minnesota "

What are the research articles? I think adding citation for one of the research article done on Minnesota or a brief description can be better instead of giving an example. It will make the information more reliable in a way.

In the infrastructure section: the example of stadium was given and comparing the rates of fatilities to the skyscrapers, where did this information come from? No source or citation is provided.

Light Pollution: the definition of the light pollution was paraphrased from one of the wikipedia articles. I think changing the phrase "excessive or unwanted light" to another synonym can be better to avoid plagiarism.

The example of the bird collisions in the Germany was given with the research journal. Also, New York was mentioned but no research article supported that statement. Based on the Introduction, the route which was described targeted the birds in the Americas which were migrating and the accidents and the problems were faced by the birds in the United States. I think the introduction set the tone and laid out that the article will be focused in the United States alone. May be adding a research article about New York can make the section more balanced because it is more focused on Germany.

Vulnerable Species: The Citation or the source in the reference section does not appear.

Seasonality: The same problem with the source as the prior section in the reference section.

Resolution: The 20 states that were following the law to reduce bird morality - may be listing some of the states can add onto more information.

Tone and Balance: the lead section is not neutral, the word choice in the lead section can be persuasive and the infrastructure section was over expressed about the research in Germany and under expressed about the New York information.

Sources and References: the most of the resources used were scientific or research journals which makes the information reliable, and most of them were published recently. All of the links works expect one. The one of the references is taken from the website (https://www.audubon.org/news/millions-migratory-birds-catch-break-nyc-passes-bird-friendly-building-law) but I think this is not a secondary source or peer review because I looked at the article and no research paper was provided.

This article was divided into sections which separated different information and it was organized well. The sections has headings which makes it easy to follow. The article is linked to other articles such as species who are in danger.

Images and Media: there were no images in the sandbox draft related to the topic.