User talk:Clandry10/Libyan jird/Snowr23 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 does a great job of describing the animal. I was impressed by the Ecology section and just how detailed it was without being too wordy.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I think that they could take the Ecology section and split it into another section. It would improve the flow of the article.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think all that is needed is for their information to be accurate and to align with what is already written in terms of style and flow.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? Yes, I noticed that this article maintained lots of information that is credible although only using 6 references.

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? Yes, the sections are organized well. Yes, the information that they are adding does make sense where they are putting it.

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? It feels as though that the Ecology section will catch readers’ attention with its size over the rest of the article.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the article does not try to convince the reader one way or another.

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." No, I did not find any phrases that were not worded neutral.

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? Most statements are connected to a reliable source.

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. Although there are only 6 sources, the article remains unbalanced and provides a neutral view to this species.

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! There are no unsourced statements in this article.