User talk:Btrent2/European starling

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Lilly Doan

Article you are reviewing: European starling

1. Very interesting choice of topic, I really want to know more about it from reading just the title.

2. Although two sentences is the minimum required amount of writing we should contribute, I think the author’s choice of sentence length should be longer. The two sentences are quite short with not a lot of detail pertaining to their choice of topic, perhaps more clarity should be good. There is also redundancy of the word “male” in the first sentence.

3. Add more detail to the sentences, as they’re too short and filled with too little information, in my opinion. I suggest going into more depth about more male characteristics that females tend to look at, as I’m sure there are more.

4. Clarity and sentence structure plays a huge role in the overall quality of the contributions to your article. Readers should have a clear understanding of the topic after reading it, hence I think it’s good to include more information that will better their understanding, in this case, of Morphology of the vocal organ in European starling.

5. It’s organized, but so little information is offered to make an accurate judgement. I think this aspect can only be reviewed after the author has included more information pertaining to the topic.

6. As I’ve mentioned before, the article should be lengthened, significantly because I feel the author has left out information that provides good clarity and understanding to the person who is reading it. Sentences lack structure and connection to the overall topic of the article. 7.There’s no conclusion written from what I’ve read. The author just states pure facts that they’ve found through their source. Perhaps lacking in some evidence to back up those facts.

8. No words or phrases that are biased. Again, too little writing at this point to review this aspect.

9.Yes. Although the author includes citations, they did not cite from the source in the two sentences they’ve written. I recommend citing information you’ve gotten from the source, even if they’re in your own words, they’re still someone else’s idea.

10. Again, author has not cited from the source.

11.Author did obtain information from the source they’ve provided, but they did not cite from those sources in their article statements. Lvlpeach12 (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)