User:Tigerfan2024/Koala/Hpayne4 Peer Review

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155

Your name: Hollie Payne

Article you are reviewing: Koala

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

The article describes the species and facts about it very well. It was extremely long and detailed which took me by surprise.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I really do not think this article needs much. There is a ton of information. What the student did add does improve the article.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I believe what the student did add in the sandbox is the perfect addition to the article.

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

Yes, my animal also uses thermoregulatory processes, but in a different way than a koala, but it could be applicable to note the range of animals that use this process.

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?

The article is organized perfectly, with very distinct and clear sections. Where the student is adding their information makes sense and adds to the article.

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?

The article is quite lengthy, but I think each section is describing what it is supposed to. I feel some information could be condensed, but not too much or it would lose out on valuable information to the article. Nothing seems to be off topic within the article.

7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No, the article is neutral and does not try to persuade in any way or draw conclusions.

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."

No, all phrases seem to be neutral in the article.

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?

Yes, The sources are academic articles which are 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, there are ample sources provided in this article and not a lot of statements are attributed to one or two sources. It seems pretty evenly distributed throughout this article.

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, all statements have sources if needed, and are sourced accurately to my knowledge.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)