User:Candyapple13/Mountain bluebird/HLStewart2000 Peer Review

General info

 * Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155                                      Article you are reviewing: Mountain Bluebird
 * 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)   I thought this article described the significance of the effects of noise very well, the last sentence was particularly good at this.
 * What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? A)   Editing to improve readability for common users.
 * What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? A)   I think the only thing I would suggest would be changing the words Anthropogenic and fitness, as these are not layman terms and most wiki readers likely will not be able to decern what this means.
 * 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)   Yes, I agree with where they are adding this addition.
 * 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 think the sections length is of equal importance to the subject.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? A)   This article has neutral wordage.
 * 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 article has neutral wordage.
 * 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 two scholarly articles in which the text is connected to.
 * 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)    It seems to be balanced between the two sources.
 * 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)   The second source has some sort of formatting issue but other than that it looks good.

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.)