User:Kmerren/Hooded seal/AidanBio4155 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Username: Kmerren


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

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?

The article explains physiological traits of the seal well (like the nasal cavity which is very interesting).

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

I think the “Lifespan” subsection should be deleted and added to another section like “Life Cycle.” The “Lifespan” subsection is just too short, and lumping this section in with another could help the structure of the article.

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

You could ask the talk page about the article’s organization and suggest moving certain sections around for the betterment of the flow of the article.

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

I liked the distribution map that was included on the side of the article. If my article had one, it would be helpful to the readers to actually see where the little broad-nosed bat resides.

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 article is arranged well for the most part, but some sections are not in a sensible order. I think some subsections could be rearranged, like the early development section should be higher up in the article. Also, I think that the addition to the article would be more appropriate in the “Offspring” subsection, since that text discusses the blubber that is discussed in the new text.

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?

Like I stated earlier, the “Lifespan” section seems out of place and just needs to be added to another section. Other than that, all the sections are on-topic.

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

No, the article does a good job of being informative, not persuasive.

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, the article uses neutral words and phrases along with references to support their information.

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 statements have a citation after it, and those references all come from reliable sources; it seems like a lot come from scientific journals.

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.

The article has a pretty balanced usage of the different articles; there are 27 different sources used throughout the article. Some sections may favor certain articles, but that is simply because that section’s information was derived from those specific sources.

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!

Not every statement has a reference after it, because sometimes related sentences will have a source or two listed after all of them.