User talk:Cspark12998/sandbox

peer review
The article is well structured. The bird is described nicely. I think the phrase ‘is a South American dabbling duck’ describes the subject clearly. I think the author should change the heading ‘breeding’ to anatomy and morphology and then create a subcategory with the tittle breeding so that author does not have to keep creating now headings for small topics. I think the citation is missing in this article so the author can add the citation section. My article is in the very beginning stage and there are only a few sentences added but I can form a better structure after reviewing this article. All the sections are well organized, but the gallery section is at the bottom. It would make more sense if it is above the description section or somewhere at the top. Yes, all the information is in the right spot. The article is still taking its shape I think all the sections can have a lot more information (or length). There is nothing unnecessary or off-topic. The article does not draw any conclusion or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view. No words or phrases are used in the article that does not feel neutral. I think the article rely on blogs or self-publish authors. All the statements are evenly attributed to the sources. There are a few unsourced statements in the article. Pagalpanda (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)