User:GuwopC98/Harp seal/Jbrian7 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

GuwopC98


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GuwopC98/Harp_seal?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

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?
 * 2) * The article conveys its information in a straightforward way that is easy to follow and understand. The information in the article was impressive, pertaining to the seal’s ways of thermoregulating.


 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 2) * The only changes I would make would be to reword the sentence starting with “It is beneficial when it comes to regulation, in baby Harp seals.” I would reword that just for conciseness.


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 2) * The most important thing the author could do would be to just maybe reword the sentence previously mentioned.


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
 * 2) * The similarities I saw between my article and their article would be the conception and topic of thermoregulation and how animals do it.


 * 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?
 * 2) * The information they are adding makes sense where it would be listed being that they would put it in the thermoregulation section, coinciding with their topic.


 * 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?
 * 2) * I would say that the article contains very necessary sections, being that it talks about the harp seal’s diet, thermoregulation, senses, etc. The only portion of the article that seemed to come out of nowhere was the paragraph pertaining to population dynamics.


 * 1) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * 2) * The article just lists facts; it does not sway the reader towards any biases.


 * 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."
 * 2) * I found no biased phrases throughout the article. Everything was neutral, even the section regarding seal hunting.


 * 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?
 * 2) * The majority of the sources were well-credited and being from established sources.


 * 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.
 * 2) * There were a lot of statements that referenced the second source, but not so much that the article was leaning towards one point of view.


 * 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!
 * 2) * I did not come across any unsourced statements in the article.