User:Ksachs123/Black howler/Tlaforge Peer Review

General info
Ksachs123
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
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 does a great job in getting straight to the point with factual information. There is no extra fluff within the paragraph that is not useful. I knew right away from the first sentence that the paragraph was going to be about Black howler’s diet and activity levels.

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

-       I would suggest including more transitions within the sentences so the paragraph does not sounds as choppy. Also, the second sentence sounds like a run-on sentence, so just checking on your grammar.

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

-       Something that could be improved within this article is having a more clear structure. There is plenty of good information that is written down, but I believe it could be written in a more organized way. For example, splitting the paragraph into two different paragraphs could be an option.

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

-       This article made me realize that I may want to improve my article by eliminating some of the fluff that I had written throughout some of my sentences.

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 last sentence could possibly be added in the middle of the paragraph rather than as a closing sentence. Moreover, you could expand a little more on the specifics on how the gut microbiome changes throughout the seasons.

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?

-       I believe there is a good amount of description for each topic. I don’t believe there is anything off-topic, talked about too much, or unnecessary. The information present is all straight-forward, clear, and useful.

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

-       I do not see any bias with the article. There are only important facts that do not take one side of a view over another.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."

-       The terms used all throughout this article are all very neutral.

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?

-       Most statements are connected to a reliable source. The only one I notice that is not connected to a source is the last sentence.

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.

-       There is more than one source that attributes to the information, so the article is balanced with more than one point of view.

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!

-       The sources are cited within the article, but I do not see any works cited page or reference page where the sources came from.