User talk:Glabor5/Chicken/Daniel7514 Peer Review

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Daniel Sentilles

Article you are reviewing: Chicken by Glabor5

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 very good job at addressing the topic of egg incubation and hatchability. It is very approachable and describes the subject matter in a clear concise manner.

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

Maybe specify a specific portion of the article strictly to the physiology aspect of the chicken development and hatching.

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

Discuss the differences among different types of chickens as it relates to the topic at hand. It would give the reader a sense of variation among all chickens.

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

I appreciated the slow organized breakdown of the subjest as if it was telling a story about the process being described. I thought this structure was very helpful.

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?

The sections are well organized, and the new information falls perfectly into the precedent set by the earlier additions. The location of the new add on is fine and well presented.

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?

The sections of the article seem completely appropriate in length and description with a good focus and relevance to the articles topic

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

The article does not seem biased and presents the info in a clear manner as to not attempt to persuade any readers of a specific point of view.

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. There are only neutral words and phrases. The information added is completely neutral and supported by neutral sources.

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 information added is referenced to two reliable sources that discuss the subject matter in a professional and unbiased way. Again, the sources are academically credible sources from scientific journals.

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 information added is equally pulled from the sources used. There is no instance where one source was over referenced compared to another.

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!

To my observation, all information presented in the additions have been verified through the secondary sources that are cited.