User talk:Cbutl37/Amethyst sunbird

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155
Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				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 one 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. Lvlpeach12 (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)