User:Taufiq.khaled/Dik-dik/SamiAissi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Taufiq.khaled


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dik-dik

Evaluate the drafted change

 * 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 of explaining how Dik-Diks adapt to     the extreme high temperatures they’re exposed to and why they adapt in that     certain way.
 * 2) What changes     would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes     be an improvement? I would suggest that the author simplify and shorten     some sentences without losing any important information
 * 3) What's     the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I     am not sure where the author’s section of the article would go. I would     make sure you have a plan of where to put it.
 * 4) Did     you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable     to your own article? If so, what? Yes, I would like to include in my     article the reason my species adapts the way it does like this author did     in his
 * 5) 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? I am     not sure where the author’s section of the article would go. I assume in     the “Physical Characteristics” section, but they should make sure they     have it figured out.
 * 6) 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? I don’t think at its core there’s any information being     added that’s unnecessary and there’s no information that’s off-topic, but     the wording could be changed to get more straight to the point in the last     part of the author’s section.
 * 7) Does     the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one     particular point of view? No, the article doesn’t try to convince the     reader of anything and is unbiased.
 * 8) 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." The     author uses the words “in truth”, which I believe is questionable, but I     don’t think is a necessity to be changed.
 * 9) 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? The information in this article section is from two reliable     sources.
 * 10) 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. No, the article successfully balances information from     both sources.
 * 11) 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! No, the author     accurately presents information from both sources