User:EPLSU2022/Columbian ground squirrel/Crichm3 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: EPLSU2022


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EPLSU2022/Columbian_ground_squirrel/Crichm3_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Columbian ground squirrel

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.)

Peer Review

 * 1) The article stays focused to the section and flows well with the preceding paragraphs. The article is concise and includes references that back up each claim. When the phrase "lactation period" was introduced it brought up a new topic that the author focused on, and provided new information about the species.
 * 2) I would suggest changing the end of the last sentence to contain less scientific jargon. The statistic seems unhelpful in comparison to the rest of the article, especially when thinking in terms of a general audience. You could write something like "which typically experiences a significant increase in concentration from the beginning of lactation to its peak at ~17 days postpartum". This would improve the addition to the article because it applies more towards Wikipedia's audience and stays focused on the species.
 * 3) The author's addition the article is necessary because it expands on the lactation period of this species. To improve the article further they could add some information to the areas of the Taxonomy section that are lacking. This section has information but the information is quite vague the further along the section goes.
 * 4) My article does not have a taxonomy section or a human interactions section. I think these would be a good addition to my article because the Rhim gazelle is endangered so it has information to contribute to a human interactions section, and all species could easily have a taxonomy section. In the taxonomy section I could include information on the Rhim gazelles ancestral lineage if information is available.
 * 5) The sections of the article are organized well and in a fashion that makes it easy to read and follow. I don't think the order of the sections needs to be changed at all. The information they are adding makes sense and is being inserted in a part of the article that applies to the information being added.
 * 6) The sections are all a justifiable length. The taxonomy section graphic is too large and does not provide enough useful information for the space it takes up. There isn't anything off topic in the article, but there is a lot of scientific jargon in the last paragraph of the Description section that makes it confusing to a general audience.
 * 7) The article is unbiased and does not try to sway the reader one way or another.
 * No, the article maintains neutral language.
 * 1) Some statements are not even cited. In the Ecology section, there is the statement "They are "one of the most vegetarian of all the ground squirrels"", but there is no reference for this claim. The rest of the information that is cited comes from a reliable source, most of which are journal articles.
 * No, the article uses a wide array of reliable sources that are spread throughout the article along with the information these sources contributed.
 * 1) There are not citations for every source, but every source is listed in the footnotes. There are some statements that don't include references. There is one in the Ecology section-stated previously in my review-and a few in the beginning paragraphs of the Behavior section.