User:Trouter123/Burchell's sandgrouse/Sgotha1 Peer Review


 * 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?

They used good language when describing the adaptations, and used it in such a way that it’s easy to understand. It is also formatted clearly and concisely so the adaptations and their functions can be understood.


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

It would be interesting to see, if the information can be found somewhere, what the difference in average water carrying capacity in females vs males has an effect on their responses to hot conditions. This way, if there is a difference, we would know which sex works differently.


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

Explain more about how they increase their resting metabolic rate. This statement was made at the beginning of the paragraph and not much information was given as to how they do this- or if it was, it’s unclear which part of their adaptations mentioned achieve this.


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

The topic of evaporative water loss is very similar to my own article, however none of it is applicable because the mechanisms for water loss are very different in birds and amphibians.


 * 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?

It is not mentioned anywhere where they are putting their information.


 * 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?

The length of the sections are equal to their importance- they very briefly explain what their topic is and why it is important, and then delve into the specifics of the adaptation for longer. Unless there is more to add about females vs males water carrying capacity, that sentence is somewhat off-topic.


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

No, they do a very good job of keeping a neutral stance.


 * 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."

Yes, they use “especially hard” when referring to the chicks overcoming limited water availability.


 * 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?

Their sources are reliable, they are both peer reviewed scientific articles


 * 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.

Most of the statements are attributed to the second article sourced, which talks about the specific water transport the sandgrouse uses to limit evaporative water loss.


 * 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!

No, all of their facts are sourced correctly, and nothing is stated that isn’t in the reference list.

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.)