User:Xyvi/Teleost/Chase.anselmo Peer Review

Peer Review

 * 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 cited articles are dense, comparative studies. Your article focuses on the main points of these papers well! It’s easy to understand what the main topic is.
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I’d suggest including a sentence discussing what these adaptations mean for the fish. Does increased membrane unsaturated fatty acids in cold temperature fish increase their survival? What’s the big picture takeaway for your topic? For example, the thermoregulation section that you pasted in your sandbox – the final sentence is “In polar regions and in the deep ocean, where the temperature is a few degrees above freezing point, some large fish, such as the swordfish, marlin and tuna, have a heating mechanism which raises the temperature of the brain and eye, allowing them significantly better vision than their cold-blooded prey.” This is an example of what I’m mentioning. If you include one of these statements in your article, it would communicate the overarching point of your information a little more clearly. The source doesn’t address the implications of these adaptations in the discussion surprisingly. Therefore, I’d suggest including some form of an introductory statement/sentence that leads into the detailed physiological information. In other words, lead your readers into the water, rather than making them jump in.
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Take one step back from the detailed information and mention how these physiological adaptations affect the fish’s function.
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? Mmm not really.
 * 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? The article is sensibly ordered, and I agree that the content belongs under Thermoregulation.
 * 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? I think the information is all relevant.
 * 7) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the information is presented very matter of fact.
 * 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 information is neutral.
 * 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, every piece of information is cited to peer-reviewed articles.
 * 10) Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to a unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Yes, every piece of information is cited to peer-reviewed articles.
 * 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! The information presented seems accurate.