User talk:Athib65/Antarctic petrel/Jessicaphillips10 Peer Review

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? - This article does a good job of explaining how the pJessicaphillips10 (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)etrel chicks survive right after hatching.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? - Maybe a smoother transition into the added sentence. This would just help the reader be able to continue reading without losing track of the idea.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? - Add some sort of transition between ideas of loss of eggs and what makes them survive over other eggs.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? - Yes, it made me realize I might need to look at certain sentences and see if they need any more detail or background information.

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 sections are in a sensible order however I might change the description to be before information about the section on taxonomy and systematics to give a better idea of what they look like now and then go into how they have evolved from their first ancestors. The information being added fits well into the part of the article they are adding it in.

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? - I think this section is a good length for the subject of the article. All of the other sections do have importance in the overall topic of the Antarctic petrel.

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? - I do not think there was a pull to one particular point of view. Overall it was more about general knowledge of the Antarctica petrel.

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." - I did not find any words, phrases, or sentences that did not feel neutral.

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, most statements appeared to come from a reliable article or textbook. I did not really find any information from a blog or self-published author. 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 were multiple sources throughout the article that had a plethora of information to learn about. The variety of sources helped to keep the article flowing with fresh information that did not feel too heavy.

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! - All of the evidence in the article appeared to be backed up by a valid source. I think the authors did a good job of making sure the information came from a validating source. Jessicaphillips10 (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)