User:Livvv2024/Brontotheriidae/Zoe3440 Peer Review

General info
Livvv2024
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Livvv2024/Brontotheriidae
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Brontotheriidae

Evaluate the drafted changes
You added a lot of information and I think it really enhances the article! Overall I think that you did a really good job! I do have some suggestions, which I've organized below by article section.

Lead:

I'm not sure that two sentences describing the meaning of the names are really crucial enough information about the topic to include in your lead section (as well as not being referenced in the rest of the article). Perhaps this information could be shortened to just describe the word for Brontotheres, or moved to another section? I would also watch out for close paraphrasing in this section as the phrasing, particularly in the sentence about the meaning of "Titanotheres", which seems pretty similar to the original source. You may also want to add in a sentence or two in the lead section describing your new additions. I think it would be especially good to add a sentence on the 'discovery' section you added since it's not really covered in the lead.

Characteristics and evolution:

The additional information you added on the wear pattern and tooth evolution is definitely helpful and meshes very well with the pre-existing section! Do you know where the original article sourced that first paragraph, or is it the same source you used to add on? I noticed in the original article that citations are a little sparse, particularly in the first paragraph and the second half of the third paragraph in this section, and in the first part of the lead, so it could be helpful to add in sources for this information if you can find it. When you say that they stood over 2.5 meters tall, I think it's important to add something like "with some species standing over 7 meters tall" so it doesn't seem like a universal statement about all Brontotheres (since it mentions elsewhere in the article that some were smaller). Here, too, I noticed that the phrasing is extremely similar to how it's written in the source; I would be careful of close paraphrasing in general and maybe check back through your article to make sure you've changed things enough from your original sources. I like how you added in a description of the difference between male and female horns in that one species because when I read the original article and it mentioned sexual dimorphism, I wondered what the sex differences were. I also think that your addition of another example helps the section not focus too exclusively on a single species which definitely helps the section. However, I think you should probably add a citation directly to the sentence about the nasal cavity vocalizations. I'm assuming it's from the same source as the previous sentences, but since it's a pretty speculative statement, I think it's important to explicitly point to where that conclusion came from.

Discovery

The addition of this section is helpful and enriching to the article! I like how you were very thorough in including citations in this section, and I think it's a good length relative to the other section that reflects their relative importance. The first two sentences in the section are very close to two sentences I found in the source.

References

There are several instances where what appears to be the same source is listed more than once in your references (possibly because they were used both by you and by past authors?). I noticed that references 4 and 2 are the same. References 1 and 9 are the same, and 14 also looks very similar, but I wasn't able to tell if they're actually the same source because the link for reference 14 leads to a broken page (which may also be something to look into). This source is used a lot; it seems like a good source, but it could be helpful to diversify a bit. Reference 3 doesn't have a full citation and also doesn't look like a very reliable source to me. I know this was a source from the original article and not one you used in your edits, but it may be helpful to find a different source for that information or to at least generate a full citation for that reference. References 7 and 5 are also the same.

Overall:

Again, good job overall! I know I got kind of nitpicky in my review, but that wasn't because I think your article isn't a strong draft! I think that it's a great draft that could become even stronger with some edits. Your writing is clear and concise throughout, and your additions do a really good job of meshing with the writing in the original article while filling in some gaps. My biggest suggestion would be to check through your additions with a really careful eye for close paraphrasing. I noticed a couple instances where phrasing seemed pretty similar to the source but I didn't fully read through all of your references, so I think you should probably look back on everything. I know I harped on that a lot in my review, but I think that some attention in that area could really improve your article.