User:Camrynkeller/Electric Eel/Eautin1 Peer Review

Peer review by Emma Autin
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 organizes the points well. What I found impressive or was glad to see was a brief description describing what the Nka is, given that one has to assume the reader does not know that piece of information. It is crucial in knowing what Nka is to understand the context. The transition from sentence two to sentence three is a turn of phase that describes the subject in a clear way by restating the focus on “the three organs”.

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

I think that you could improve the article by rewording the first sentence a tad. You start by saying that the three organs have very different functions. Yet the following sentence mentions a similarity between two organs.

So maybe say that the three organs have both similar and different functions.

The organization would improve in my opinion.

OR could add at the end of sentence two, “which is not the case in the Sachs’ organ.” To remain on topic with saying have different functions.

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

I think the content is easy to understand but the first sentence would be improved to better lead into the information.

I would say what protein instead of “this protein”.

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

Yes! I noticed how the second sentence repeats the topic of focus by restating “the three organs”. This is useful in making the information easier to follow for the reader.

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 organization is in a sensible order so I would leave it in that order. Unfortunately, I do not see where you state where you plan to add the article. However, it seems to fit perfectly into the physiology subsection which makes sense to put your information there.

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?

Each section’s length is equal to their importance. Nothing is off topic however you should say what protein instead of “this protein” to better explain.

7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No! The article does not contain bias or persuasive language.

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 several in the beginning sentence. I would not say that it is unneutral, but it implies that you are going to talk about several physiological differences and then you only talk about a couple. A couple implies two while several implies 3 or more.

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 statements are connected to reliable sources from research articles.

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.

The first statement regarding the Calmodulin protein is attributed to the Science Advances source and the second statement comes from the source Na+/K+-ATPase α-Subunit (Nkaα) Isoforms and Their MRNA Expression Levels.

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!

There are not any unsourced statements in the article. Both pieces of information were found on the articles listed in the bibliography.

Message:

I think your biggest strength is your organization and the flow of the information. It did not sound like you were just listing random facts and that is good. Improvement wise, I would just say to add the word similarities to the first sentence or add the differing organ in the second sentence as mentioned in question 2. Also change the word several in the first sentence to a few or a couple. Overall, I think that your draft is well written and easy to follow.

Emma Autin