User:Vle27/Thirteen-lined ground squirrel/Cal2air Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Vle27)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vle27/Thirteen-lined_ground_squirrel?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Thirteen-lined ground squirrel

Evaluate the drafted changes
Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155                                     Your name: Courtney

Article you are reviewing: Thirteen Lined Ground Squirrel by Vle27


 * 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 best explains the nature of a thirteen-lined ground squirrels and does well to explain the hibernation process of the animal. The author improves on specifying what is important during torpor- the contractile properties of the muscles.


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

I would suggest that add to the paragraph to see more of the information from the second  source. Additionally changing the word choice of “the change is not significant to change their contractile properties” because it is repetitive and can make readability a little confusing.


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

The article by itself is very well written. Other than diction changes, there is nothing to add. This is pretty solid and follows the previous paragraph succinctly.


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

I could improve the word choice within my article. I could also do to add more information with more citation within my writing to make it more creditable. I could also improve the readability by writing more concisely.


 * 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?

Yes, the sections make sense and it is sensible where the author put the 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?

Yes each section's length is equal to its importance to the article's subject. There aren’t any sections in the article that seem unnecessary and nothing is off-topic.


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

No, it doesn’t.


 * 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."

No, all language within the article is neutral.


 * 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?

All sources are from reliable sources.


 * 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.

Throughout the Wikipedia article, it is shown to be unbiased with numerous sources. From the author, only one source is used in their new section. It is advised to add second source.


 * 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 unsourced statement seen in article.