User:Emigracew/Hypostomus plecostomus/Tracha3 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 delivers the message well. The following sentences are given in a clear structure to help understand that Hypostomus are able to breathe air.

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


 * The author could add how the Hypostomus plecostomus are able to rely on their gills, since it was mentioned in the draft.

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


 * As mentioned in the last answer, I believe adding information on how they rely on the gills will improve the article because the gills were mentioned as reliable. Well only if your source provides you with that information, a sentence about how they rely on gills could help.

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


 * Both of our articles relate to each other, but I didn’t notice anything directly applicable to my article. Although, the way the author structured her article could help me a lot.

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?


 * In my opinion, the author has a nice structure of her draft. She presents her topic well, so the readers can understand. I’m not sure on where the section would be placed in the article, but it seems like they would have to make a new section. There isn’t a section provided on the physiology of Hypostomus plecostomus. A new section under distribution and habitat seem like a good place to start a physiology section.

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?


 * The section length seems appropriate, it doesn’t overwhelm you with details or provide unnecessary information about the topic. Everything seems relevant to the article.

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


 * The article isn’t bias. The author provides relevant information about the fish being able to breathe air. The author’s viewpoint isn’t given.

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."


 * It isn’t any words or phrases that aren’t neutral. Good job!

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?


 * Yes, these are reliable sources. Make sure to add sources in the correct Cite link. (it’s at the top of your sandbox page, beside the bullet points and under paragraph.)

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.


 * No, there is an equal amount of information given to each source. The draft is balanced.

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 of the information in the draft is presented with their reliable sources.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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