User:BCBulldog2023/White-footed mouse/Chelsei.L Peer Review

detoGeneral info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Usernames: Alfielevitski, BCBulldog2023, Cynthia1u2.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BCBulldog2023/White-footed_mouse?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article: White-footed mouse
 * Link to the current version of the article: White-footed mouse

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Section: I think the lead section of the draft is good and very straight to the point but I do think we need more context and background information about the species. For example I think they can incorporate like the common name of the species as well and not just the scientific name of the animal that is being discussed. I also think they can incorporate important facts about the white footed mice like for example where were they originally found, their life span, their trophic level and their family. I also think they can incorporate images as to what the P.Leucopus looks like to draw the readers attention and have an image to refer to when they are reading the article. I do like that the lead section however was very concise. I also noticed that some part of the lead section from the original article was deleted but I think it should be added on to make the introduction of the article more strong and informative for the readers. I also found it helpful that my peers did inform the readers what will be discussed throughout the article but I think there should be a little more details at to what will be discussed in each section of the article, but overall good job.

Content Section: Right off the bat I noticed that my fellow classmates incorporated more sections in the article that is not present in the original published article. They added a metabolism section which goes over how the white footed mouse process their food and what types of food they use to gain energy for survival. I noticed that since my peers added a more in depth section about their metabolism they left out some important information about their behavior. For instance the original article states "they are timid and generally avoid humans, but they occasionally take up residence in ground-floor walls of homes and apartments, where they build nests and store food." I think this piece of evidence should be kept in there because my peers stated how these mice had to adapt to diet-mediated selective pressures of urban habitats and how they heavily rely on human food but do not state where they live/habitat. The reason as to why this species relies heavily on human leftovers as a food source is due to their environment being surrounded by humans. However I think that it is super important that they added new information as to how the white footed mouse use human food as a survival tactic because they gain more fat and carbohydrates than rural populations. The sources used within this section is also a bit recent because it is from 2017 and was based off a scientific article which is deemed to be reliable.

Tone and Balance: The content throughout the article is super neutral because it does not have information or facts that try and persuade readers to have a certain perspective. No claims appear heavily biased towards a point of view nor do they have viewpoints that are over presented. Even though I believe that their article should contain more information on the species I don't think they underrepresented a viewpoint at all. The information given is strictly informative for the readers.

Sources and References: I noticed that my peers draft only has 3 references that they used. I went to check each one individually and they all are reliable sources which is good because it supports their overall theme of the article and is valid information given but I do think they should incorporate some more details of the species background and maybe reasons as to why they are so crucial to the ecosystem because they help reduce the amount of pests (especially eat gypsy moths), or how they are negatively impacting the ecosystem. For example they can include how these rodents carry numerous diseases that can be transmittable to other species/ humans like the orthohantavirus. They can even include more information as to how these rodents have high number of offsprings when they reproduce. Lastly they can also add the characteristics of the white footed mouse and how they use their sense of smell to navigate different signals of communication.

Organization: Overall the article seems to have no grammatical errors it is also well written and concise. I enjoyed that they discussed about the immunity of the white footed mouse and their detoxification process. I think this draft is overall good but does need some minor improvements to make it more stronger and appealing for the readers to engage throughout the article, maybe add some few picture to relate back to your four major points. Since there aren't any images there is no copyright information needed.

Overall impression: The content added did improve the quality of the article because it added more information about the white footed mouse that was not present before, making the article more knowledgable. The strengths of the draft is incorporating the detoxification, reproduction and immunity of the species discussed. Overall I think it is a really good start and I am excited to see the final published piece because I think it will be interesting to learn more about these rodents, good job guys!