User talk:L$utigers/Arabian oryx

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 is clear and concise with good word structure except at the very end. The end of the sentence “…which proves just how efficient these animals are at surviving in times when water and food are scarce” sounds more as a conclusion to a paper. I was able to read this article without any stoppage due to good word flow.

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

More quantitative data would be more beneficial. These studies are quite advanced but more simple breakdowns of how these animals can function on a physiological level would drastically add a lot more depth to the physiology of the animal. A better lead section would also suffice to explain what extremes/stresses this animal goes through to pique interest.

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

What was mentioned above.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

The word flow of the article is much superior to mine which allows for better understanding.