User:Crichm3/Rhim gazelle/Saucyluffy Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Crichm3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crichm3/Rhim_gazelle?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Rhim 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?  I liked how they added the part about use of temperature regulation not only in the heat but also when it gets cold.


 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?  Maybe add a little bit of information on the mechanism behind their temperature regulation instead of just stating it and how it helps them tolerate the environment.


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?  Honestly, just provide a little more information on the subject to tie everything into one another.


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?  Not really, we have similar topics, but one species is more studied than the other.


 * 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?  Yes, the article is structured in a sensible order, however, I think making a whole new section on physiological adaptations might be better than throwing it in the middle of Distribution and Habitat.


 * 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?  I feel like your main point is your shortest sentence and that should be the focus on the paragraph. Nothing seems off-topic, just stuck in the middle of another section.


 * 1) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?  Nope, just a face value look at the animal.


 * 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."  Nope.


 * 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?  Yes, for the most part.


 * 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 only one source used, you may want to add another one to cover bases.


 * 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!  I think everything is cited.