User:Waynnee/Golden shiner/AidanBio4155 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Username: Wayne


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Waynnee/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Golden shiner
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Golden shiner
 * Golden shiner

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?

This article did a great job of explain different aspects of the golden shiner; every complicated topic was adequately elaborated on. Also, a lot of the complicated terms and ideas had links to articles solely dedicated to that topic.

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

I think the taxonomy section could be moved into another section. If the authors believe that this section should remain a stand-alone section, then more information should be added to make it equal in importance to the article.

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

This article is already very descriptive and well-done, so I think some minor grammatical changes could make this article even better.

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

I liked the links to other articles for specific scientific terms. This could allow me to include “scientific jargon” while still informing the reader, since they can gain more information at the click of a button.

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?

It was unclear if the new information being added was its own section. It was pasted underneath the “Behavior” section, but I was not sure if that was just to show its placement. If it is a stand-alone section, I think it would do well in the order shown. If it is supposed to be part of the “Behavior” section, I think adding it after the first paragraph would make for a smoother read. The reader would be introduced to “shoals” and then see how this behavior could be disrupted from factors such as mercury in the environment.

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?

The “Behaviors” section is very long compared to the other sections. On the other hand, the section “Taxonomy” is only one sentence. There needs to be more informational balance between all of the sections.

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

No, the article does a good job of being informative, not persuasive.

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, the article uses neutral words and phrases along with references to support their information.

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?

The reference section includes a lot of scientific journals and textbooks as sources, not blogs or self-published authors.

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.

There is a good balance of source usage throughout the article; no one article is heavily relied on. While different sections focus on different sources to support their information, the 23 sources used make for a balanced 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 of the paragraphs have at least one source listed at the end (some are throughout the paragraph). Although, there is one source in the reference section that is not numbered, so I do not think it created a “citation link” within the article.