User:Thidal1/Bowfin/EPLSU2022 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Thidal1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thidal1/Bowfin?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bowfin

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?

- I believe that this article does just about everything well. It has many sections that are well written and go into a good bit of detail. There was nothing that I had trouble understanding. Something that I though was super interesting was that the Bowfin is the last surviving species in the Amiiformes order.

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

- In terms of the article as it is now (not considering your draft), I don’t see much potential for change that would make it better. I like the way that it is currently structured and written. The only thing that could be done would maybe be to expand the diseases section a bit, as I’m sure these fish deal with more than what is mentioned in the article. But I could be wrong!

- In terms of your contribution draft, I think swapping your sentences (putting the 2nd one 1st) would allow the paragraph to flow into your contribution better, as the last sentence that is there talks about breathing (unless the 2nd second relates to your first one). Having the chemoreceptor regulation sentence first, I think, would just break up the flow. Also, it doesn’t seem clear to me whether or not the evidence you mention is about the lack of central chemoreceptor regulation. This just kind of confuses me. Lastly, grammatically, the following should be done to the 2nd sentence “….responding to the temperature of the water they reside in, as water temperatures play a role in oxygen….”

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

- I honestly don’t see anything to change, other than maybe expanding on the diseases section, that would greatly improve the article. Your contribution will be a good addition, I would just rewrite it to make it easier to understand, as mentioned above.

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

- Yes, the bowfin article has several more topics than mine, such as physiology, life-cycle, evolution, utilization, and accumulation of toxic substances. Doing further research on my species in order to add more sections like those in the Bowfin article would definitely make it a better, more in-depth 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?

- Yes, everything flows well and is where it needs to be. Where you want to add your contribution is best place for it in my opinion, as it is in the physiology section where breathing is discussed.

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?

- Everything has a fair amount of information at least and is all on topic. Nothing seems to be the wrong length in terms of its importance to the species.

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

- No, this article appears to be neutral and unbiased.

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."

- No, this article appears to be neutral and unbiased.

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?

- Yes, most of the sources are reliable and no paragraphs are missing citations.

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, the use of sources seems to be spread evenly throughout 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!

- Everything seems to be cited and matches the information from the source.