User:Amidou1/Coke's hartebeest/32Dugg Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Amidou1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amidou1/Coke%27s_hartebeest?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Coke's hartebeest

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article does a really good job of explaining how it specifically thermoregulates within the environment (panting, etc.). I think that the author should first apply in text citations to the article. Even though the information was summed up well, it is good to provide a reference for where you received the information from. The most important thing the author could do to improve the article would be to explain what cutaneous water loss is or provide reference to an article on Wikipedia about cutaneous water loss. Something I did notice about the article that I can apply to my own is the amount of water that is actual amount of water loss observed (liters per kilogram per day.)

I do like that you add this paragraph in a section of adaptations. However, I would love to see which sections in-between adaptations that this section would go into. The last sentence of the paragraph that discusses the Hartbeest water economy sounds kind of repetitive. It would be best to rephrase the sentence before it to include this information. The article does not draw conclusions or try to force a certain agenda onto the reader. There are no words and phrases that don’t feel neutral. Based on the information provided in the reference section, I know this information did not come from a blog source or anything, however like stated before you should go back and cite your sources within the article. Without these citations, I am unable to see if you used both sources evenly or if you just provided information from one source.