User:RandomCitizen27/Apparent death/Buginajar Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

RandomCitizen27


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RandomCitizen27/Apparent_death?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Apparent death

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: I like the changes you made to the lead, much better opening paragraph. One thing I well mention is the existing sentence on Gilman et al. I'm not sure I haven't seen many wiki articles using formal paper citations like et al. so perhaps there is a different way to reference this study? If you can't find a way around it I understand I just think the formality of this specific citation does not fit with wikipedia article.

Content: I see that a lot of your changes are to do with content organization which i think is a great thing for this article. I agree that combining the tonic immobility and thanatosis sections makes sense, however, you should tread carefully here and make sure both terms mean the same thing. Make sure there aren't difference in behaviour patterns between the two (e.g., tonic immobility means the animal lies still and perhaps thanatosis means they may hold their breath and lie still). I of course do not know if there is a difference so I cannot say if it should be one way or another. Organizing all the information beneath the Tonic Immobility section should bode well and add flow to the article. Explaining each of the uses of tonic immobility directly under the definition also makes sense and adds to the flow. Otherwise, the content you are adding expands on areas that need it and helps the overall construction of a good article.

Tone: I think your draft is fairly neutral. I did notice however, that you did not draft a fix for the neutrality of the "in rabbits" section. This section is very opinion based and even says "..the study failed to explore..." which is of course not neutral language. Perhaps you could work on this section or even pose some changes in the talk section. Since wikipedia has given a warning about the tone I believe it should be addressed.

Sources: Like I mentioned above there is at least one academic (sounding) citation that could be rewritten. Otherwise, there are some places where citations are scattered throughout a sentence and i think per wiki guidelines citations should all be at the end of sentences. Of course i may be wrong about this but if not there are at least four sentences that can be quickly fixed by moving citations to the end. The references you are adding seem in order and are used correctly throughout your draft!

Overall: I have to agree that this article could use a lot of organization and I'm glad to see you have planned for such. I think with a better flow, edited content and tone, this could be a great article.

Best of luck ~ Buginajar