User:Amatthews31/Largemouth bass/Kgaly2 Peer Review

Article you are reviewing: Largemouth Bass


 * 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 paragraph is very informative and interesting how stress impacts physiological phenotype.


 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

A change I would suggest is making the paragraph flow better. For example, combine what the 2 articles are saying and summarize the results with the current sentence that is last. This will help the readers on Wikipedia I believe!


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

The most important thing is overall flow. The information is there and is very good!


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?

I don’t believe so!


 * 1) 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?

I agree with making this paragraph a new section!


 * 1) 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?

Yes, the article is quietly long and touches on the most important aspects on the Largemouth Bass


 * 1) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No there is no specific viewpoint


 * 1) 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."

No there is not. The language is very neutral.


 * 1) 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?

Yes, they look reliable!


 * 1) 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.

The article is not unbalanced it uses both sources well.


 * 1) 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!

No!

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)