User:Rentre7/Adélie penguin/Mona Ibsa Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rentre7


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rentre7/Adélie_penguin?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Adélie penguin

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello User Rentre7, good 1st edit for your wikipedia page! Here is my personal feedback, hope this helps.

Lead: I think the topics of the article are relevant but need some more information. I believe the word count is under 500 words, but that is something that can be improved for your next article edit. You've stated that the diet of a Adélie penguin consists of two species which was reported to be related to the ross seas's geographic characteristics in the introduction of your article draft. To add more information and context for readers who have little to no knowledge of ross seas's geographic characteristics would be helpful. Although this lead is straight to the point, I feel that it is lightly underdeveloped in information.

Content: The article content was relevant to its intended topic, and the included image complemented it well. However, I feel that the description provided for the image could have been more thorough. To make your writing engaging, consider starting with an opening hook that captures readers' attention. For instance, you might describe how Adélie penguins survive in their harsh Antarctic environment by detailing some of their unique adaptations or behaviours. Ensure that scientific or technical terminology is defined so non-experts can understand what's being discussed easily; this will help keep them engaged throughout your piece. Additionally, each sentence should possess a clear subject/verb structure - avoid repetition and correct any grammar/spelling/punctuation errors to enhance readability further. Most importantly, use active voice instead of passive voice as it makes writing more dynamic and vivid for readers. Doing so will help bring life into what might otherwise be dull phrasing while keeping reader engagement high from start to finish!

Tone & Balance: I think the overall tone and balance of the article draft presents a passive voice. A number of sentences use passive voice, which can make the text appear dull since it fails to identify who or what is doing something. In some instances, ambiguity arises from using the passive voice because it's unclear who performed an action. Conversely, opting for an active voice emphasizes agency and leads to more concise sentences with clear subjects/verbs. To improve this piece's coherence and readability further, I suggest rephrasing certain phrases like "was studied closely" or "their diet serves as an indicator." Doing so eliminates repetition within your writing while conveying the same information effectively. To promote better understanding among readers when perusing any content you offer them in future writings avoid using passive voice or redundant language; these techniques create stronger connections between ideas presented thereby increasing reader engagement!

Source and Reference: The article's sources and references are chosen from credible peer-reviewed materials, ensuring that the content is well-supported by reliable research. The required number of sources was met. While reviewing the reference section of the article, I noticed some entries that were seemingly duplicates. Is that due to the arrangement in alphabetical order to allow for easier navigation? All cited works are directly related to each topic discussed within the article which guarantees readers confidence that every detail mentioned has substantial support from relevant data. Additionally, these cited documents originate mostly from recent years (5-year span) enabling access to updated insights into various topics explored.

General Spelling and Grammar Correction:

- "was studied" changed to "examined", since it sounds more appropriate

-