User talk:Cprej18/Grant Gazelle

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? -	This article does a good job of explaining the pros and limitations of national parks for their species. It is interesting to read about how they can withstand high temperatures by maintaining metabolism as well as their digestion efficiency.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -	I may add more information about how they can manage high temperatures as well as add more details to their defense mechanisms. This could be helpful because there wasn’t much detail about how digesting dry matter is a helpful adaptation of this species, but seems to be important.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -	I think that elaborating on how this species can protect themselves against predators could be the most important thing to add information to.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? -	I did not find any new information that I could add to 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? -	I think that it is organized well and makes a good addition to the threats and conservation portion of the article.

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 that each section’s length is equal to importance of the article’s subject. Everything seems to be on topic and a necessary contribution!

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -	This article does not seem biased to me or persuasive in any way.

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." -	The article seems neutral, but could be stronger by including why habitat destruction and poaching could be detrimental to the grant gazelle population.

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? -	The sources appear to be reliable self-published authors.

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. -	While there appear to only be a couple of sources, the article seems like a balanced addition to the overall Wikipedia page without leaning too heavily to one side.

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! -	Maybe addition a citation to the first sentence which includes information about heat stress and habitat destruction could improve the article.

Evabraud (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer review
Hey I think overall your article section is complete and good enough to post. I like how clear and concise you were, and I found the information interesting. However, I think you could add a sentence to elaborate and explain a little more on your two points. Such as, how does joining the Thomson Gazelles protect the Grant Gazelles from predators? Also, how does deriving protein quickly maintain their natural metabolic rate? Remember non-college bio students might no be able to understand the reason behind these things SamiAissi (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This article gives a nice overview of this species and what the Grant's Gazelle's typical living conditions and threats will be. This article covers a lot of good topics but fails to expand on some things and only briefly mentions them. For example, "Rainfall seems to be determinate of their diets" is stated but then no further explanation is provided. Adding more details about single topics can make a huge change to this article because with more and more details we can have a better understanding of the biology of this species and what causes them to behave as they do. This sort of knowledge can then be applied to similar situations in other species or in similar species. That being said though the information that is present already in this article is on topic and relevant information. I think that where user "Cprej18" is adding their information to is an appropriate place and also a category that is not as flushed out as it could be. Many things on this article are mentioned and not flushed out and this is certainly one of the areas that need more details. It does not feel biased or contrived or like it is trying to convince me to one side or another of an argument. The references used are appropriate and not too heavily balanced to one side or another but it does feel like the information being added about the predators could use some more details. Since dehydration and heat stress are not exactly related to predators of this gazelle it feels like the information being added is a bit disconnected from each other. Axel sauce (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)