User talk:Amidou1/Coke's hartebeest/AngeloB99 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? -	I like how the author introduced the Cokes Hartebeest’s adaptation by talking about the intense heat.

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 use less scientific words so the general reader that doesn’t have a scientific background can read clearly.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -	The author could improve the article by using less scientific words so the general reader that doesn’t have a scientific background can read clearly.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? -	Yes, I would add how the Hamadryas baboons live in intense heat.

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? -	Yes, it makes sense.

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 articles don’t go off topic.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -	The article just states facts about the species’ adaptation to intense heat.

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

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? -	They are connected to journal articles.

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

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