User talk:Cstran8/Mountain reindeer/Candyapple13 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 well with mentioning the basics to provide the bigger picture for the Mountain reindeer. There is nothing from this review that impressed me and there is no turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way.

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

The changes that I suggest that the article apply to this article is to remove the subsection called “compared to domestic reindeer”. This would be an improvement because it would eliminate the potential confusion that might arise about what reindeer the article is talking about. I would also add a “behavior and ecology” section. Within the “behavior and ecology” section, I would add the predator section as a subsection. I would also add a thermoregulation subsection within the behavior and ecology section where the author could add their information about the physiological properties of the Mountain reindeer to address shifts in temperature. These changes would improve the article by making it better organized and easier to read and understand the information presented. The last change that I would suggest is to make the “conservation status” subsection its own section at the end of the article which would improve the article to make it flow better and easier to understand.

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

The most important thing that the author could do to improve this article is to add sources. Without sources, the article information is not valid and could be removed.

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

No, I did not notice anything about this article that I reviewed to be applicable 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?

No, the sections are not well organized and in a sensible order in this article. The sections would make sense presented in a different way. The information added to the article does not make sense where they are putting it. It should not go under the description section but should go under a section that talks about the ecology of the Mountain reindeer.

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?

No, each section length does not equal to its importance of the article’s subject because there could be more information added to all of them. All sections in this article do seem necessary enough to give a full picture of the Mountain reindeer. However, a subsection, called “compared to domestic reindeer”, is unnecessary and off-topic from the article since the article is strictly about the Mountain reindeer. That information should be included in an article about domestic reindeer.

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

The article does not draw conclusions and does not try to convince the reader to accept one point of view over the other.

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, the article does not use words or phrases that do not feel neutral and does not include any negative associations or personal opinions.

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?

No, none of the statements mentioned in this article are connected to any reliable source, or any source at all.

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.

There are no statements attributed to any sources in this article.

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!

Yes, every statement in this article is unsourced and there are no sources listed in the reference section. Candyapple13 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)