User:Babamachine/Eastern coyote/Aquainator Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Babamachine)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Babamachine/Eastern_coyote?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Eastern coyote

Lead section:
The lead section added more information regarding the DNA, more specifically the chromosome of the body sizes of coyotes. In addition, the lead section in the content provides a well-researched explanation of findings related to coyotes and their characteristics, such as colour and morphology. Although it is difficult to figure out where this section will lie in the article, the lead section explains what the body will entail well.

The lead section for “Habitat” primary begins with general information regarding measurements and ranges of where eastern Coyotes reside. This is insightful as it provides the reader with a general idea of the habitat size before further establishing more detailed information. The author did an outstanding job painting the picture of what the section will entail or what you will expect upon reading the paragraph. The lead sentence gets straight to the point. The objective of the section is clear, concise, and easy to comprehend.

Content Section:
The first paragraph in the sandbox article draft had a well-written content section. There seems not to be any heavy bias in the content. The information used examples to further elaborate on ideas. This is beneficial as it helps the reader better understand the information. However, while I was reading the material, there was a lack of understanding of where this information would fit. The author fails to provide information in that regard. In addition, I fail to understand why the author chose to incorporate this information in the article as it almost seems out of place compared to the published article.

The “habitat” section was a new addition of a section to include in the article. The habitat was briefly introduced in the Wikipedia article, but creating a content section specifically on habitat helped elaborate and explained information that the introduction briefly touched upon. The author did a really good job finding content in Wikipedia that was briefly mentioned but not well explained. She was able to effectively able to fill those gaps.

Tone and balance section:
The tone of the section seems neutral. The target audience appears knowledgeable, and the domain appears general. The jargon was reasonably easy to comprehend. The sections seem to be well written and well researched. Although, there seem to be minor grammar mistakes and some unclear antecedents. Upon reading the author's word choice made the content straight to the point and did not change their points radically. The sentence structure is fluid and cohesive to read. A majority of the sentences in the section are active.

The sections seem to have texts with a rhythmical flow. The sentences with a really good balance had clear meanings on the information.

In order to make the sections more balanced, more information needs to be added. In addition, some ideas in the article seemed to lack explanations. As a result, the quality is affected. This, however, may be a result of the word limit.

Sources and references:
All three of the author's articles are Peer-reviewed or published by wildlife management. This makes the information from the articles reliable. The range of articles are from 1984-2013. The oldest article was from 1984. This does make the years of publication older than ten years. However, this does raise concern on whether the content in the article is out of date.

The citations are APA7 and follow the format provided in owl Purdue. The article has no errors concerning spelling, and accessing the original articles was easy. The author also explains why the article is essential for the article. This reinforces why the author chose this article from a plethora of other options. The article effectively uses in-text citation. This helped me figure out which reference is in the sections. This also assures the credibility of the information and protects the author from plagiarism. The author did an excellent job in referencing the articles.

Overall Spelling and grammar:

The spelling is well done. Other than some minor grammar mistakes, it was also good.