User:Esand16/Shark/Chase.anselmo Peer Review

Peer Review Questions

 * 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 topic of the information is very clear, and the very first sentence introduces the topic which is helpful for forming a train-of-thought.
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?  I think there’s room for a little more information, like just one more sentence. While there’s good information about how the olfactory bulb morphology changes with the shark’s environment, there isn’t much information about how these morphological adaptations affect the shark. You do a good job communicating that sharks living in environments of low visibility have larger olfactory bulbs, but with the functional role of olfactory bulbs in mind (smell), what would larger olfactory bulbs allow the shark to do, and why would larger olfactory bulbs benefit the sharks in this low-visibility context? This information would help communicate the importance of these adaptations for the shark’s survival, and overall explain how the environment can shape the physiology of sharks.
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?  Maybe read through the discussion of your cited papers and include some of that relevant information as well.
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?  Definitely! I didn’t talk too much about climate in my article, which can clearly affect the evolution of species. My article would be improved if I did.
 * 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?  Yep, I think the proposed location for the article is spot on.
 * 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?  I think this article is proportional. Nothing seems unnecessary and the topic is very apparent.
 * 7) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?  No, the information is presented neutrally, and all the pieces of information are cited.
 * 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."  Not that I see, everything is neutral.
 * 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, every sentence cites a reliable source.
 * 10) Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to a  unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.  This article doesn’t feel imbalanced. It has three sentences, two cite the same article and one cites the other. This seems totally fine.
 * 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!  Yes, the last sentence includes a citation but may be inaccurate. I read through the article and couldn’t find information about sharks at deeper depths having more olfactory bulbs, but I did see that their olfactory bulbs had higher volumes. Consider double-checking your information just in case!