User:Cgabri4/Southern fiscal/Docindy01 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)

1.     The article was straight to the point and concise. What impressed me during the review was that I understood everything the author wanted to state in five sentences. The article was clear throughout, but closer to the end of the article, it was a bit unclear if the “seasonal differences” was a part of the hunting methods of the southern fiscals that they adjust to.

2.     I would suggest the author either combine the last two sentences so that the reader would understand that some of the hunting method adjustments include the following: encounter time, attack distance, perching height, and prey length, or the author could try to have a better transition from the second to last sentence to the last sentence.

3.     The most important thing that the author could do to improve the article is to have better transitions from one sentence to the next such as from sentence two to sentence three instead of stating a statement and have a better transition from sentence four to sentence five so that the article can flow better.

4.     What I noticed about the article that could be applicable to my own article is the conciseness of the article. I would want to make my article straight to the point like this article. The way the author cited his/her sources in the reference section where there was an arrow or up sign like the article that they were going to be editing could be applicable for my article as well when referencing sources.

5.     The sections are organized well, and the information was presented in a way that was understood from adjusting the parameters of the Southern Fiscal to their hunting adjustments.

6.     All of the sections of information presented are of equal length, and nothing seemed to be off topic. The information inputted in the article makes sense on where he/she is putting it.

7.     The article does not try to persuade or convince any reader of anything. The author is just presenting statements and backing it up with citations.

8.     There are no words or phrases that do not feel neutral.

9.     The two statements that were cited are connected to a reliable source such as journal articles.

10.  There are not a lot of statements attributed to one or two articles. There is one statement for each source.

11.  The second sentence looks unsourced but that may be just the authors general knowledge of the subject.