User:Lithopslover/Arctic Hare/Samsmith428 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lithopslover


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Lithopslover/Arctic Hare
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Arctic hare

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.)


 * 1) What does the article do well? Impressive points?
 * 2) * For the most part, this article remains neutral. The sources used were primarily scientific literature, which is always positive. The addition of a physiology section is helpful for understanding an organism, making it a great addition to make to a Wikipedia article
 * 3) Suggested changes? Why?
 * 4) * Remember to use neutral language. Do not use words like "interesting." I also noticed many instances where the sentences felt run on, or that they can possibly be condensed/phrased better. Its also never hurts to use the hyperlink option in the editing page for words/concepts that the reader might need to use for reference to find more information on (for example: reflectance or Greenland).
 * 5) Most important improvement to make and why?
 * 6) * I think your leading sentence about interesting adaptations should be rephrased to make it neutral, something more along the lines of "Arctic hares have many physiological features which are adaptations which are linked to their extreme environment."
 * 7) Anything applicable to my own article?
 * 8) * I enjoyed that there was a main section being created, as well as edits to improve the article flagged with [edit]. I also have found many sources and short comings in the article that I am editing, and I think I will use this method to keep track of changes that I want to make. Plus, it makes for more product to show the work you did!