User:JacksonJLandry/African olive pigeon/Lenaerickson Peer Review

General info
JacksonJLandry
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:JacksonJLandry/African olive pigeon
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):African olive pigeon

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 job at concisely stating the facts he plans to add.


 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I cannot think of a suggestion to improve this article. I noticed the wording has changed since the last time I read it and I think it was done well.


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

If there was anything else to do to improve the article, I could suggest making it a little longer.


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?

I did not see much to do with my article, seeing as how its about changing the fitness of Takydromus amurensis.


 * 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?

I think that the article is organized really well; I agree with his decision to add this information into the feeding section of the article


 * 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?

There is only one section since he is adding a concise but specific piece of information about this species’ habits.


 * 1) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

From what I read, I did not notice any bias in the draft that was submitted.


 * 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."

I did not see any words that were suggestive to bias or negative associations.


 * 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?

In the article that I was sent on email since the user had not yet posted in the sandbox draft, the sources were listed and seemed to be updated and relevant.


 * 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.

I did not notice all of the information coming from one singular source.


 * 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 did not notice any statements that were not mentioned in the references. Each concept of the information presented was searchable on the link.