User:Chassgraves/Three-toed sloth/Sgotha1 Peer Review


 * 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?

They do well not using bias in their statements, and using clear language when explaining the adaptation.


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

I would say to add more about each adaptation, more information about what they do and how it helps them with any limitations they may experience due to their environment/physiology.


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

Add more information, make the purpose of the article clearer, and add sources.


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

None of their topics were relevant to mine, and there’s not many similarities between amphibians and sloths in relation to my topic (evaporative water loss)


 * 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?

It is not stated where in the article they would be adding this information


 * 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?

There could be a section added explaining what the topic is, and why it is important to the three-toed sloth. More information could be added as to how these adaptations help the sloth.


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

No, they do a good job of being non-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."

No, they do a good job of being non-biased.


 * 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?

I cant be sure as to where their statements come from, there is no reference list provided.


 * 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 is no reference list provided, so I cannot be sure where the information in statements come from.


 * 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!

All of the statements made in the article are unsourced to my knowledge, as there is no reference list provided.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)