User:L$utigers/Arabian oryx/Thidal1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

L$utigers


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


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, the added information is good. Some of the information could be cut down and put into simpler terms. The use of information is done well and backs up the points made. One thing that I think would be beneficial to change is removing the two sections talking about how the Oryx deals with food shortages as the information taken from your two resources seems to primarily deal with water shortages.


 * 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 added information fits well and adds good info to the article.


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

I feel cutting down on some of the information and explaining it a little simpler would be a good change.


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

Cutting down on some of the information is the most important change.


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

No


 * 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?

The information makes sense there.


 * 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?

Overall, it seemed to be an appropriate length. Cutting down on some of the information could be beneficial.


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

The article does not seem to try and draw conclusions.


 * 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."

The words were neutral.


 * 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?

They are from reliable 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.

The information is well balanced between the two sources.


 * 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!

There are no unsourced statements.