User:Mr. Jotatohead/Freshwater biology/Foresttoprairiekaren Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mr. Jotatohead


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mr. Jotatohead/Freshwater biology


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

·      Yes, but I’ve included a suggestion under sources to make it flow better.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

·      I think it may be worth looking at sentences that feel subjective instead of objective. You can either re-word them or find a citation that supports them to boost the credibility.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

·      Freshwater Biology is a massive topic so I think eventually others will have to add to this article.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

·      All links are working.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

·      I think it would be beneficial to cite sources more frequently throughout the article.

·      I love that you have linked to other articles in so many places.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

·      Not that I found.

·      I think that it would be helpful to make add a small section that connects “importance of freshwater biology” to “population aid.” It seems to me that captive breeding is just one type of “population aid.” Maybe re-title that second section as Captive breeding and write a few sentences under the old title of population aid that list multiple types of population aid? (I hope that makes sense. Feel free to contact me if it doesn’t.)

Other:

·      I love that you included a contents section, an image, and a related fields section. This article is visually appealing as soon as you pull up the page.

·      There are just a few places with grammatical errors or sentence structure issues. I recommend reading this out loud the whole way through to find those. (I write a lot for work and do this all the time to find my errors.)