User talk:Carolinebonner/Snow bunting

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?
 * 2) The article effectively explains how snow buntings adapt to extreme cold during migration and provides credible references to support its claims.


 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 2) You could enhance the article by adding more context on the significance of snow bunting or even by adding visuals incorporated into your text.


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 2) Add more detail and cite sources in the article body.


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
 * 2) Adding a lead would be nice.


 * 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?
 * 2) The location of the information does make sence.


 * 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?
 * 2) No apparent off-topic sections and everything seems adequately balanced.


 * 1) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * 2) No, the information is more informative, scientific and presenting, than it persuasive.


 * 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."
 * 2) The article uses adequate language and nothing seems completely out of the ordinary enough to provide and answer for this question.


 * 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?
 * 2) The article does draw from reliable sources, primarily academic journals.


 * 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.
 * 2) Honestly if intext citations were used I would be able to tell where which info came from where, but I can’t.


 * 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!
 * 2) Sources are given but information is not sourced.

Clandry10 (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)