User talk:Mn2019/New sandbox
Peer review of article kleptothermy by user Nchs21
General info Whose work are you reviewing? Mn2019 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mn2019/New_sandbox
Lead Lead evaluation The introductory sentence does a good job at explaining the topic and is concise and clear. However, although it makes a note about huddling, there is no mention of the other major sections (habitat sharing, pre-hatching life, evolution) in the lead. In the second paragraph the use of the word "involve" is a bit confusing, using "requires" or something similar would make it more clear. I could not find anywhere in the article that discusses the example listed at the end of the lead.
Content Content evaluation The content added to the topic is relevant and discusses important aspects of kleptothermy. The content seems to be up to date, except for two sources from the 60s and 70s that is still relevant information. There could be another section however discussing other aspects regarding the topic such as an area located for a specific type of animal that uses it. There should be somewhere in the article discussing how kleptothermy has an effect on white-tailed deer or another species of deer since there is an image of them huddling.
Tone and Balance Tone and balance evaluation The majority of the article is neutral. In the huddling section, the last sentence of the third paragraph discussing the "obvious benefits" could seem a little biased. It would help if it was reworded or a citation was added. The last paragraph of the evolution section is also lacking any citations. But overall the content is neutral and doesn't persuade the reader in anyway.
Sources and References Sources and references evaluation Some of the content as i noted above are lacking citations such as the last sentence in habitat sharing and the last paragraph of the evolution section. As well, the first paragraph in the lead discussing the topic could use a reference as well. The sources are relevant to the information that is talked about and majority of the sources are from the 2000s except for a few that are from the 90s, 80s, 70s and 60s, but still provide relevant information. The links from the sources work well.
Organization Organization evaluation The content added is well written and easy to read, however the second paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing. I didnt notice any grammatical or spelling errors in the article. The topics are separated well and are broken down into relevant topics. However, adding sub headings to the pre-hatching life and evolution sections could make it easier for the reader to read since they are a little bit long.
Images and Media Images and media evaluation The wording of the emperor penguin caption could be improved by changing "helps" to help, or even could just be changed to "huddling in emperor penguins". The huddling deer image could be re-captioned as "huddling in a herd of white tailed deer". If possible the huddling deer image should be moved up next to the huddling section rather than next to the habitat sharing section. There is an error in the wording of the embryos picture caption, instead of "it it" it should be "it is".
Overall impressions Overall evaluation Overall the content added not only improved the existing sections of the article, but also added new relevant sections. The article is much more complete and is built on relevant and reliable information that is well structured. It could be improved by adding more content and branching off into subcategories to make it easier to read. Nchs21 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)