User talk:Docindy01/Eastern deer mouse/Taufiq.khaled Peer Review

What's up Cindy, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to put all this here lol sorry. 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 was pretty informative and had reliable sources.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Some wording can be changed, because while reading it, sometimes I would have to double read to understand what was written. It was overall good though. Adding the high altitude adaptations is indeed needed.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Fix some of the wording, the rest was pretty good.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? I can include more facts in my article like what’s shown in this 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? It makes perfect sense to put it in the high altitudes adaptation section. The article is organized pretty well.

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? Nothing in the article seems to be unimportant, it was just neutral facts.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? Not at all.

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." Nothing that I could find that gave a biased feel. 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 sources of the article are reliable, and both sources provided by Cindy were reliable.

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.

The article was balanced with many articles and not leaning heavily on anything.

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! All seemed to be cited correctly by reliable sources.

Comments on draft: The overall draft was pretty informative and the Eastern Deer Mouse article can definitely benefit from what you provided. However, I think it would be beneficial if you reworded some things in your draft to make it more comprehensive. Also, your sources didn’t have the hyperlink things on it but that can be fixed easily. But overall, it was pretty good and interesting on how they adapt to high altitude environments.

Taufiq.khaled (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Taufiq Khaled