User:Cprej18/Grant Gazelle/SamiAissi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cprej18


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cprej18/Grant Gazelle


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Grant's gazelle

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * 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 does a great job of being concise and explaining how Grant’s     Gazelles maintain their normal metabolic rate while experiencing heat     stress and protect themselves from predators.
 * 2) What changes     would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes     be an improvement? I would try to expand on the ways the Grant Gazelles     combat heat stress or on how they derive protein from forage quickly. What     adaption caused them to have this ability?
 * 3) What's     the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I     would try to elaborate a little more on how the animals are able to     protect themselves in numbers and how the heat causes the Gazelles to adapt
 * 4) Did     you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable     to your own article? If so, what? I didn’t find any information I’d     like to add to my article.
 * 5) 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? I think     the place they’re adding this section to in the article is very fitting.
 * 6) 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? Nothing in this article is off-topic or unnecessary.     Everything is concise and the sections are equal length.
 * 7) Does     the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one     particular point of view? No, the article doesn’t try to convince the     reader of anything and is unbiased.
 * 8) 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." There are     no words or phrases that aren’t neutral.
 * 9) 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 information in this article section is from two reliable     sources.
 * 10) 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. The first section is a little longer, but overall the     article successfully balances information from both sources.
 * 11) 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! No, the author     accurately presents information from both sources