User:Iabundez/Dichotomyctere nigroviridis/Agomez82 Peer Review

General info
= Neutral content = Wikipedia articles aim for a neutral point of view. That means they don't attempt to persuade the reader into accepting a particular idea or position.


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * Their group's topic is the spotted pufferfish and I cannot guess the perspective of the article because there is nothing controversial with the puffer fish. Their contributions are very neutral.
 * 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."
 * All of their group's contributions are neutral, there is nothing that is conveyed two-sided.
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * The article does not make any claims on unnamed people or groups of people.
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * The article maintains a solid neutral balance between positive and negative information. It is a clear neutral reflection.

= Reliable sources = Good articles are built on good sources. When you've read the article, turn to the references section.


 * 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?

Most statements in the article are connected to a source, but the sources chosen aren't the most credible or reliable, they rely more on self published articles and websites. More credible sources from the library need to be chosen.


 * 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.

There are some statements that are attributed to one source, but overall the article is balanced and doesn't lean too heavily into a single point of view.


 * 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 no unsourced statements in the article, all of the statements have a reference linked to them. They listed a number next to each statement that aligns with the number of the source which makes it much easier to find which source belongs to which statement.