User:Cclay10/Elk/JacksonJLandry Peer Review

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155                                     Your name: Jackson Landry

Article you are reviewing: Elk


 * 1) 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?

The article describes supplemental feeding of elk as a risk to their population due to the effect it has on their gut microbiome.


 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

The addition has some science jargon that makes it hard for the reader to comprehend.


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

There needs a little more clarification.


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?

I need to add in text citations.


 * 1) 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?

The sections are organized well.


 * 1) 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?

The section lengths seem proportional to their importance.


 * 1) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No, the article is not biased.


 * 1) 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."

The wording seems neutral and unbiased.


 * 1) 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?

The sources are all reliable.


 * 1) 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.

There are many sources that are used proportionally.


 * 1) 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!

Everything seems to be sourced correctly.