User:HLStewart2000/Pack rat/Manisendra Peer Review

General info

 * Article you are reviewing- Pack Rat
 * 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 food and nutrition of the pack rat are discussed in this peer-reviewed article along with some details on the bacteria that make up the digestive system and aid in digesting. The discovery that such a gut microbiome also helps in recycling endogenous nitrogen is very interesting.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The article citation's abstract included details on how certain variables essential for animal growth are aided by the gut microbial populations. Those factors can also be included.
 * 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? The focus of the paper is on further explanation of the host's microbiome's symbiotic function. In one of the sources, the gut microbiomes of wild and captivity animals were compared. Perhaps more details about that can be given.


 * 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? Both articles focus on the animal's diet, but although my paper concentrated on water and nutrition, this one emphasizes the contribution to the host's microbiome as being important for the packrat since the gut microbiome has symbiotic functions.


 * 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?  The Wikipedia original article had very little information on diet. This seems like a really great addition. The sort of diet that each subspecies depends on was highlighted in the main article. This information helps us to comprehend how nutrients from diet assist animals in processes like dietary toxin detoxification.


 * 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? There is no material mentioned that is off subject. The findings are grouped appropriately, and they seem to be correlated.


 * 7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? While demonstrating the concept's accuracy, the article employs evidence and reason to convince the reader to support a particular point of view.


 * 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." I couldn't think of any words or phrases that weren't neutral to me. No negative linkages were found. The scientific sources selected provided the most accurate explanations.


 * 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 first source is mentioned on PNAS.org, while the second was listed on the Applied Microbiology, both of which are reputable publications.


 * 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. In my perspective, both sources provide the same amount of data. The primary source had details on the bacterial elements of the gut system, whereas the secondary source focused on the significance of this in packet rats.


 * 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! I looked through the references and read the abstracts; they offer excellent background knowledge and are relevant to the subject.

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.)