User:Amatthews31/Largemouth bass/Lenaerickson Peer Review

General info
Aidan Matthews
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:The draft was not yet published on wikipedia, but the link to the submission was sent by Professor Lattin.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Largemouth bass

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * 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?

I think that this article was well executed: it was concise but still had enough information to build a presentation of facts and it was interesting.


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

I cannot think of a suggestion to improve this article. I noticed from the email submission of the draft that ChatGPT was used but was not really helpful, so the way he made the draft detailed and factual was a good idea.


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

I do not think that there was anything this author could do to improve the article to me.


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

I did not see much to do with my article, seeing as how its about changing the fitness of Takydromus amurensis. However, one of my articles did mention the importance of my topic on the conservation of my species, and he is planning on making a new conservation section for this information.


 * 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 think that the article is organized really well; I also agree with his decision to create a new section in the article for his information.


 * 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?

There is only one section since he is adding a detailed piece of information about this species’ habits.


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

From what I read, I did not notice any bias in the draft that was submitted.


 * 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."

I did not see any words that were suggestive to bias or negative associations.


 * 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?

In the article that I was sent on email since the user had not yet posted in the sandbox draft, the sources were listed and seemed to be updated and relevant.


 * 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.

I did not notice all of the information coming from one singular source.


 * 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!

I did not notice any statements that were not mentioned in the references. Each concept of the information presented was searchable on the link.