User:Yadukulakambhoji/Air sac/ZombieManF Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Yadukulakambhoji


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Air sac

Lead

 * The Lead has not been updated to reflect the new information, therefore there is no need to discuss it further.

Content

 * The content definitely appears to be relevant to the topic. Whether or not it is up-to-date depends on what can be considered “up-to-date.” Some articles are quite recent, hailing from 2015 and 2016. Others, on the other hand, are very old, such as Schmidt-Nielsen’s article from 1971, Brown and Wang’s article from 1997, Boggs and Butler’s article from 1998, Maina’s article from 2006, O’Connor’s article from 2004, and at the oldest, Gier’s article from 1952. However, despite being old, this does not necessarily mean they are not up to date, if no additional research has been conducted on that specific content. I would not say there is any content missing that cannot be found in the original article not written by Yadukulakambhoji. There also does not appear to be any content out of place.

Tone and Balance

 * The content added is neutral, only describing the factual biology of air sacs, and never writing about aspects of them that could be considered opinion. Therefore, no claims are overrepresented, underrepresented, or heavily biased toward a particular position.

Sources and References

 * Almost all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source, which are articles that have all been peer reviewed. One exception appears to be the oldest source, “How Birds Breathe” by Schmidt-Nielson in 1971, and the one time it is cited, a peer reviewed source is also cited in the same place. The other exceptions are Franz’s “Respiratory Units of Motor Production and Song Imitation in the Zebra Finch,” Daley and Goller’s “Tracheal length changes during zebra finch song and their possible role in upper vocal tract filtering,” and Wild’s “Neural pathways for the control of birdsong production,” all of which are from the same source: Journal of Neurobiology. Therefore, sentences cited from these articles should be looked into more, even if the articles seem alright at a surface level. The content accurately reflects what the cited sources are saying; even if some specific citations are not drawing from the main point of the article, the cited sentences are still discussing information that came from those articles. The currentness of these sources have already been discussed above: though they are relatively old, this oldness does not necessarily translate to the sources being outdated. Most of the links to the articles work, except for one: the second source, Maina’s “Development, structure, and function of a novel respiratory organ, the lung-air sac system of birds: to go where no other vertebrate has gone.” A new link to this article should be found if it is to be used in this Wikipedia article.

Organization

 * The content is well-written and organized, allowing for people to get a good understanding of the topic by reading the article. The one complaint I would give is that some specific terms such as “dorsobronchi,” “ventrobronchi,” “intrapulomonary bronchus,” etc. should have hyperlinks to the Wikipedia articles on them, since although one can glance at the article and know well how these things relate to the air sac, the article does not actually explain these terms. Obviously it does not need to, but it should have these hyperlinks included. There are no major grammatical errors: the only two I could spot were in “intrapulomonary bronhchus,” where ‘bronchus’ had an extra ‘h,’ and under song production, where it should read: “Birdsong primarily occurs in expiration and is therefore syllables and fundamental frequency are highly correlated with increased interclavicular air sac air sac pressure,” rather than ‘ith’ freshwater. The content is well organized, although this organization does not match up with the organization used by the original article. However, this can easily be fixed when the content is actually added to the original article.

Overall impressions

 * Overall, I would say that the added content will improve the article. It has a lot of sources, even if not all sources are perfect, and is well organized and clear with no major issues. However, there are some minor tweaks that can be made to polish it, such as fixing the few grammar errors and fixing the broken link to one of the sources.