User talk:Saucyluffy/Great tit

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?

This article is absolutely excellent in understanding the information in the study given and in the study found. A detailed level of writing is placed in this article which adds new and clear depth to it. The lead was good in tying in why this physical adaption/ physiological function is necessary. No section on physiology is made but this would be a great new addition to it.

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

Explain what thermogenic means. Some readers may or may not know what that means and looking the information up would break up flow. Explain vasoconstriction. The last sentence is cut short possibly due to a time constraint but no conclusion is needed in these types of articles but expound upon it if possible in order to show the importance of the adaptation to the animal. This could be found in a discussion session or even in the introduction to the studies you looked up.

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

Simplify all the “big” words. The Wikipedia is much less like a research article so people of all backgrounds will be reading this. People being able to understand your article would be a benefit to you as well as communities that are interested in the species.

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

Your article makes me reflect on how I should create better word flow in my own as well as gain a proficiency equal to yours when it comes to understanding the material.