User talk:Cbutl37

Welcome!
Hello, Cbutl37, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155
Lvlpeach12 (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Your name: Lilly Doan

Article you are reviewing: Amethyst sunbird

1.	I appreciate how the author provides information on environmental adaptations of this bird species in a captivating and concise manner. I like how the author clarifies the effects of hematocrit levels on altitude with the line..“hematocrit levels will increase with higher altitudes (dramatic drop in temperature).”

2.	As a reader with no previous knowledge or context of Amethyst sunbird, I was a bit confused with the term “hematocrit” when reading just this section alone. Perhaps the author can begin this article section expanding a bit on what hematocrit actually is to provide the readers with a clearer understanding of the purpose of the article as a whole.

3.	Just include a bit more clarity on terms as stated in #2, and a bit more expansion in the range of phenotypes mentioned in the second paragraph. It may need some rewording, as I read it I was a bit confused as to why that would have a great impact on birds’ endurance to climate change. Elaborate and provide a few examples of those phenotypes.

4.	I noticed how the author delivers most of their major points in a concise manner, without the mistake of having grammatical errors and run-on sentences like I did in my own article.

5.	Overall, everything is written in a well-organized manner. Author provides good information to back up claims in their article. Good transition. The information they are adding to the article makes sense where they are putting it because it accurately pertains to the species adaptation.

6.	“The phenotype of these birds includes a huge range between multiple different subpopulation..” This sentence can be reworded in a clearer way, with a bit more details such as examples if necessary. Other than that, nothing is off-topic.

7.	Not really, as the author uses words such as “may be attributed” and “can change” in a passive away and not trying to convince the reader to accept one particular pov. The author also uses adequate scientific information they’ve found to support their claims, in a more neutral manner. Good job.

8.	“huge range”

9.	Statements are connected to a reliable source, journal articles.

10.	The author cited a different source per paragraph that they wrote. So I don’t think it’s a biased article at all. 11.	The statistical data and findings at the beginning (the first two sentences) should be cited to the respective source.

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?

The article edit does well to describe the changes in metabolic rates across different populations at different altitudes.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

'''The only changes I would say would be to add a definition of hematocrit since it was introduced and never explained and also touch up some of the word tenses to make everything concise. Overall everything looks good, there’s just a few grammatical mistakes that can be easily fixed.'''

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

The only thing would be to elaborate more on hematocrit since the entire first paragraph revolves around that topic.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?

This article referred to various populations of the same species and how they differ across the board, which is something I could look into regarding the different adaptations across all of the subspecies mentioned in my article.

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?

The information was presented in a logical was and it seems that a new subsection for adaptations will be made after the final edit, which works because the Wikipedia article does not have said section yet.

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?

I think the length of the edit compared to the article is fitting, especially since a lot of information was added in just a few paragraphs.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

The article has a very neutral tone and does not show any bias towards any point of view.

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."

Everything looks good in terms of staying neutral in the edit.

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?

Each source is a scientific article or an excerpt from a scientific journal.

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.

Each source is cited evenly for the amount of information they provide.

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!

Everything in the article comes from the sources cited.

Jordanviv02 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Jordanviv02