User:MasonRodriguez/Northern treeshrew/NolaMo2 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mason Rodriguez


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

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) The information seems to be well organized and useful to the article.
 * 2) I would potentially combine the characteristics and phylogeny sections since each are relatively smaller and related to each other.
 * 3) The author could add on by expanding on the last section.
 * 4) No I didn't notice anything that could be useful for my article except for potentially adding on to a section.


 * 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 article does a good job to generally describe the northern tree shrew


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

I would suggest combining the characteristics and phylogeny sections. This is because both sections are relatively short and related to each other.


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

The author could expand on the last section titled “in medical research”


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

No, I don’t believe so


 * 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 sections are organized well, I would just combine the phylogeny and characteristics sections.


 * 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?

Yes, the sections are all necessary and useful to the topic.


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

No, it just presents information about the organism and topic


 * 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."

No, everything seems 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?

Most statements have 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 article has many sources and does not seem to be unbalanced.


 * 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!

One statement is unsourced and says citation is needed. The others all have proper sources.