User:Hpayne4/Sheepshead minnow/Graisonb Peer Review

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
Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155

Graison Boswell

Article you are reviewing: Sheepshead Minnow

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

I think this article describes the species well. It's very short though.

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

I think going into more detail about the location of the fish is key. There is a reason for its adaptations and location is important because of diet.

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

I believe adding in more from the scientific articles, like key details, would be beneficial. Why exactly they've adapted.

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

My animal is very different from the 2 species I reviewed, so there are not much similarities.

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 articles sections are decent, but I do believe the description section could be broken up into smaller sections.

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 description section is too long and vague.

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

No, the article is neutral.

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."

This entire article remains fairly 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?

They're mostly related to articles; still lacking there though. Just not much key information.

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 are not.

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!

No there are not.