User:AngeloB99/Hamadryas baboon/HLStewart2000 Peer Review

General info

 * Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155                            Article you are reviewing: Hamadryas Baboon  Water shortage and heat are two main threats to Hamadryas baboons because when desert conditions were simulated and drinking water was removed, there was a steady increase in core temperature over the span of three days, but when water was returned, there was a rapid decrease in core temperature. On the upside, they can maintain their plasma volume despite losing bodily fluid because they have more efficient albumin that give a higher rate of synthesis.


 * 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? A)   The article explains well what the main threats to these Hamadryas Baboons are.
 * What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? A)   I would suggest elaborating on the significance of the body temperature fluctuations, so the reader knows why the baboons do this. Same goes for plasma volume and the rate of albumin synthesis.
 * What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? A)   Just expanding on the topics there so the reader knows why this is significant.
 * Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? A)   NA
 * 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? A)   The author did not note where this addition would be added so I am unable to comment on this.
 * 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? A)   I believe that once expanded on everything will be of equal length/importance.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?  A)   This is mostly neutral language.
 * 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. A)   This is mostly neutral language.
 * 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? A)   There are no sources cited.
 * 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. A)   There are no sources cited.
 * 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! A)   There are no sources cited.

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.)