User:Mpolit4/Mummichog/L$utigers Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mpolit4


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mpolit4/Mummichog?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * 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 does well in explaining the types of environments Mummichog can survive in whether it talked about the different temperatures or salinity concentrations. Also, it explained well what Ldh-B enzyme is and how it affects the fish. The thing that impressed me is the way she connected the enzyme functionality to the types of environments the fish lives in, and how it could affect the fish depending on where it lived. A turn of phrase that described the subject clearly is when she started the sentence with “This is achieved by…” indicating that the fish survives these environments because of the enzyme she expresses later on which I assumed was the subject of her article, and those sentences are in bold indicating that they are important.

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

•The only thing I would suggest to edit is to state the species of fish (Mummichog) the author will be talking about in the first sentence of the article just to give the reader a clearer idea of what fish species' physiology the author is describing.

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

• The only glaring mistake I could find was the one I stated in the question above about stating the name of the species of fish in the beginning of the article for clarity for the reader.

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

• Yes, the way she hyperlinked the information from her sources to the reference section in her article.

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?

• I think the last two sentences about salinity tolerance would fit better in the background information about the mummichog's tolerance to environmental changes in the beginning of the article. Other than that everything else is organized well.

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?

• All sections in the article are of equal length compared to its importance and nothing is off topic.

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

• The article does not draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view.

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."

• There is neither non-neutral or negative association type of language present in the article.

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?

• All the sentences in the article are connected by a reliable source which is indicated at the end of each sentence with a hyperlinked number.

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.

• Every sentence in the article is attributed to different sources, so there is no unbalanced representation in the article.

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, all the sentences have a source connected to it and is correctly listed in the reference section.