User talk:AJ2ZX/Small snakehead/Jckmena Peer Review

Peer Review
Here is my peer-review. Good luck with midterms!

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 think the author did a terrific job in portraying their information in a way that really anyone could understand (aside from the terminology, of course).

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? •	One change that I might recommend is for the author to think about putting their new information in a “physiology” section rather than an “adaptation” section. This is because I feel like a large majority of the information relates to the physiology of the Small Snakehead and might be a little to narrow for an adaptation section. I feel like this addition would be able to improve clarity and organization within the article •	I would also recommend possibly editing the first sentence when the author says “accumulate ammonia when they encounter aerial exposure that can also affect locomotor activities” to clear up what it is that affects locomotor activities.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? •	I would say mainly just editing the first sentence and tweaking some of the grammar and sentence structure within the second sentence.

4.	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? •	As I addressed in question 1, I believe the information might be more suited for a “physiology” section, but besides that, I believe the new information is organized in a logical way.

5.	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 drafted article has a nice balance of topics and stays relevant to the section topic throughout the whole passage.

6.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? •	No, the drafted article is informational and unbiased.

7.	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, there are no words or phrases that express any sort of bias or negative connotation.

8.	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, all statements are supported by two peer-reviewed articles.

9.	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, it seems like the author has a good balance of information between the two papers.

10.	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, it seems like all statements correspond to conclusions made by either of the two papers.

Jckmena (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)