User:Rmarin8/Pond loach/Crichm3 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: Rmarin8


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rmarin8/Pond_loach?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Peer Review

 * 1) The article provides a lot of information on the species that is helpful for Wikipedia's audience. Some of the information is questionable in terms of its reliability and a lot of the information is lacking references.
 * 2) I would suggest that the author review the claims of the article and find sources that verify these claims. The author could also add information that is supported by references or add references to existing information in the article. These changes would improve the article drastically because this is the article's main weak point. These changes would make the article itself a more reliable source.
 * 3) Adding references to support information and claims in the article is the most important thing that could strengthen this article. There are some claims that seem unnecessary as well that could be removed like the claim about pond loaches being friendly with goldfish.
 * 4) The "range" section could be applied to my Rhim gazelle article as well as the "in the aquarium" section. A "range" section could be used to expand on the environment the Rhim gazelle species inhabits and which parts of Africa they live in. Upon further development, the Rhim gazelle article could have an "in captivity" section if the species doesn't go extinct like the "in the aquarium" section.
 * 5) The article's sections are not organized very well. The introduction and the description section are set up well, but the In the Aquarium section should be renamed and divided up. The range section should not be so late in the article since that should be one of the first topics covered. The information the author is adding to the article is going in one of the stronger sections and makes sense where it is being inserted. It also strengthens a claim with references and develops more on a topic introduced in this section without steering away from the focus on the species.
 * 6) The sections are obviously disorganized and the In the Aquarium section includes the bulk of the information on the species and is written poorly. If this section were reorganized into other sections then the article would have sections with more appropriate lengths and each section would contribute a topic specific collection of information on the subject of the article. The part in the In the Aquarium section about pond loaches being peaceful and friendly with goldfish is off-topic and should be removed. The statement "you should check up on your pond loach if they don't show up for roll call one day" also needs to be removed.
 * 7) The entire second paragraph of the In the Aquarium section is written so weirdly that it sounds like it is trying to convince the reader of something, but the paragraph is instructing the reader on aquarium tank care for this species. The paragraph should be rewritten in a fashion better suited for an informative article on the Pond loach as a species. The rest of the In the Aquarium section includes sentences that sound like the article is trying to convince the reader that Pond loaches are a necessary part of any aquarium tank and are extremely useful for that purpose.
 * 8) The In the Aquarium section includes verbiage that isn't entirely neutral. Words and phrases like: "this makes the pond loach a great choice", " Purchasers often presume when buying tropical freshwater fish that all species will thrive in the (typical for home freshwater aquarium installations) 76–82 °F (24–28 °C) range; this presumption is incorrect in the case of the pond loach", and "They are extremely peaceful". These sentences make the section seem like an advertisement for pond loaches for aquariums.
 * 9) Most statements in the article do not include a source at all. The information that actually does include sources is questionable still. Some of the references are from journals with one being from a news article and one from an untrustworthy website that is used to cite the bulk of the In the Aquarium section. There are only four sources and a lot of information. The author's sources for the addition they are making to the article are trustworthy and distributed well throughout the information they're providing.
 * 10) The entire In the Aquarium section seems to come from one source and since this is the largest section it makes the article incredibly unbalanced. The section is more of an aquarium guide than it is informative on the species. This section disrupts the fluidity of the article and needs to be redone. All of the sections that are cited only rely on two sources per section. These sections are so small that if more information was added to develop on these sections new sources could be used that strengthen the article and the preexisting source information.
 * 11) The As Food section, In the Aquarium section, and parts of the Description section are lacking sources for the statements provided. The citations are not done correctly throughout the article and many claims present "citation needed" links.