User talk:GuwopC98/Harp seal

Peer Review: Harp Seal

 * 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?

Compared to my article, the Harp Seal has many sections in the article. The article does a great job at having an in-depth “Life History” section, specifically “Reproduction and development”. I am impressed with the amount of photos that are in the article.


 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

Some areas that need improvement are the Physiology and Population dynamics sections. I think these topics could have more elaboration since they are fairly broad topics of discussion.


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

The most important thing that could be done to improve the article is expanding on the Population Dynamics section. This section is only 3 sentences and the articles are from 2021 which could be updated if information is available from this year (2022).


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

Something that I see within this article that could be improved on mine, the amount of photos in the article. I think that makes the readers experience more enjoyable. Also, in relation to my article, both of our species have to deal with breeding in cold environments. I like how this article goes into great detail about the breeding conditons and the physiology of the pups.


 * 1) 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?

Overall, I think the sections are in a sensible order. The only suggestion I have is making the “Senses” section a subsection of the “Physiology” section. The information they are adding talks about how blubber and fur both play a role in keeping them warm. They are putting this new information under the Thermoregulation section, which I agree on.


 * 1) 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 all of the sections have a reasonable amount. Again, the Population Dynamics section could be longer but other than that, the Physiology could be longer also. I do not see anything unnecessary or off-topic.


 * 1) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No- there is no bias within this article.


 * 1) 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."

One word that I noticed that does not seem appropriate is, “nowadays” in the last section of Population dynamics. To me, this sounds informal for the article.


 * 1) 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 of the sources are reliable primary sources such as journals. One site that seemed questionable to me is source 9, which is a website that does not seem reliable.


 * 1) 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.

Many of the sentences spread throughout the whole article come from source 2.


 * 1) 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!

I did not see any unsourced statements. Athib65 (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)