User talk:Snowr23/Yellow baboon/Tigerfan2024 Peer Review

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 written very-concisely and delivers the appropriate information in a clear and articulate way. The topic is introduced clearly, and smoothy transitions into the descriptions of the research that led to the discovery.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I think perhaps a few or more clarifying words could be added in the sentence describing the research about what changes in microbiome they observed, like what specific aspects of it- a different type of bacteria? More enzymes? It seems a bit vague at present.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? More clarification into the specifics of what changes in microbiome were observed in the research and how exactly it is different because of social patterns. It is evident there is a change, but what specifically has changed in their microbiome and how does it differ because of socialization? Also a bit more clarity in the last sentence about what exactly changes because of male dispersal in the gut microbe, and why do the researchers think this happened (if available) or is it negative for survival of population as a whole?

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? The ordering of the sentences in this article is very ordered and starts broadly about baboon behavior and narrows it to the specific papers included in the article. I believe I will integrate this article structure into my own paper.

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 article itself is ordered and flows nicely. I cannot see in the sandbox exactly where the author is intending to place the paragraph on the Yellow Baboon Wikipedia page, but I imagine somewhere under a physiology or ecology subheading.

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? Nothing appears to be off-topic, and the content appears to be balanced in presentation.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the author has written in a neutral tone and is merely describing a recent scientific discovery involving yellow baboons.

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." Maybe the word “unique” in sentence two could be omitted to just read “a group of researchers studied this correlation and found…”. But overall, this article is well-written in a neutral tone.

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? Both articles are from reputable scientific journals and raise no questions about credibility.

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. Considering the limitations of only two sources in the assignment, the article appears to be well-balanced and incorporates both articles in a balanced way. The author does not try to “force” the reader into believing anything, they are merely sharing a recent biological discovery and have provided credible sources that led to the finding.

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! All statements appear to be supported by the research cited in the paragraph.