User:Docindy01/Eastern deer mouse/EPLSU2022 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Docindy01


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Docindy01/Eastern_deer_mouse?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Eastern deer mouse

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 think that the article does a good overall job at covering most of the general details of the Eastern deer mouse, however, nothing stood out to me as “impressive.” It just seems like a standard article. Everything in the article was easy to understand. The lead and overview do their job at giving general information about this species without going too in depth.

2. '''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

- Some of the topics in the “Reproduction and Life Span” section, such as dispersal, are pretty scarce and could use a bit of expansion, though I am not knowledgeable on how much more information there is on this species, so maybe this is all they know. This would just help make the article look less scarce and give more useful information. Another thing that could make it less scarce could be to combine the “procreation,” “breeding season,” and “gestation, litter size and productivity” sections to make a bigger section that puts all of this breeding information in one place.

- In terms of your addition draft, some sentences can be combined to make it seem less stop and go as you read it. For example, “At high altitudes, there are low levels of oxygen and ambient temperatures. In these types of environments, the Eastern Deer Mouse have been seen to colonize it” seems like general knowledge and could be put into the end of the next sentence, replacing “harsh conditions” with something like “low levels of oxygen and ambient temperatures found in this environment.” Also, I feel like discussing the globins at the end was a bit too detailed and could be simplified and compacted for easier understanding.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

- I would say it would be the second change I mentioned above, as this would make it more organized and less scarce looking. I feel like having small sections on each of these related subtopics is kind of unnecessary.

4. '''Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?'''

- I honestly can’t find anything from this article that would improve mine.

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 would make reproduction its own topic under the behavior section, as it just seems kind of weird to have a small behavior section and then a big reproduction section after. Diet could be moved under the behavior section as well. I would also make life span its own section, as it seems out of place.

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?'''

- As mentioned above, the behavior section is small, but could be improved by reorganizing other parts of the article into the behavior section. Other than that, I think all of the information in the article is on-topic and okay to stay.

7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

- No, this article appears to be neutral and 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."'''

- No, this article appears to be neutral and unbiased.

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?'''

- Yes, most of the sources are reliable and no paragraphs are missing citations.

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.'''

- No, the use of sources seems to be spread evenly throughout the article.

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!'''

- Everything seems to be cited and matches the information from the source.