User:Manisendra/Sable Antelope/Jbrian7 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Manisendra


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sable antelope

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?
 * 2) * The article is formulated well, with the subsections put in the proper sections. I found the information about how the sable antelope travels every two to four days for water.


 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 2) * The only changes I would suggest would be to maybe add a citation after the statistic of “tree leaves make up 90% of their diet”


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 2) * I would say maybe adding that citation would be useful and rewording the sentence “The sable presumably decreased its risk of being eaten by staying away from feeding areas, this compensated for the prolonged and strenuous journey to the water.” I would either make that two sentences, or add a semi colon, being that it is more of a run on.


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
 * 2) * I did not find anything that would be applicable to my article pertaining to the Willow ptarmigan


 * 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?
 * 2) * I am not sure where the user is going to add their information, I believe they forgot to add that, but I would put their paragraph under the Diet subsection.


 * 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?
 * 2) * The section relating to the reproduction of the sable antelope could be longer and give more in detail information about said animal. I would also say the diet section could be longer and give more information, but seeing that this user is covering that topic, it will be longer.


 * 1) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * 2) * The article does not have any major biases or try to sway the reader to any certain way. The article just contains facts.


 * 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."
 * 2) * I did not find any phrases or words that would cause biases or that were not neutral. There were no sentences from the first person point of view, and everything was neutral ground with stated facts.


 * 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?
 * 2) * The article’s sources came from established journals and universities, one being John Hopkins, and as such, the sources are credible.


 * 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.
 * 2) * I did not find any sources that were used much more frequently than the other ones, therefore the article is balanced and does not lean into a single point of view.


 * 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!
 * 2) * I did not find any unsourced statements in the article. All information was given properly, being that it was not only cited, but cited from a credible source.