User talk:Marquette Mutchler/sandbox

peer review
The article is well structured and is divided into many sections. The one thing I like is that enough amount of information is given about the topic in the introduction. I would suggest the author put vocalization under the physiology section. One important thing the author can do is create one section about anatomy or physiology or create two different sections and put breeding, diet, and vocalization accordingly so that the author does not have to keep creating a new section for all the subtopics. Other than the structure and organization of the article, nothing would apply to my article. Other than the suggestions discussed above the article is in a sensible order. All the sections are given importance accordingly. Everything is included in the article. Nothing in the article appears unnecessary or off-topic. The article is written in a factious manner. I do not notice any particular point of view or conclusion that tries to convince readers. The article feels neutral. There are no words or phrases that feel or look biased. Many of the sentences are connected to reliable sources but few references rely on blogs or self-published authors. The attribution is evenly distributed and hence the article is not unbalanced or pointed towards any single viewpoint. Many sentences are not cited at all, so it is difficult for me to say that the statements in the article are from reliable sources or stated from the references. Pagalpanda (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)