User talk:Amatthews31/Largemouth bass/Ksachs123 Peer Review

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 article is very detailed on the feeding aspect of the Largemouth Bass. What impresses me is the inclusion of all of the genus’ added on the side for the different breeds of largemouth bass. In the summary, you can tell that there would be a section about them being invasive based on the last sentence. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Adding more to the description of the bass would help since it is one of the shortest sections of the article. These changes would be an improvement to give the reader more information about exactly what a largemouth bass looks like. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing would be to add in a section about the demographics for the bass, considering it is not really explicitly given within the article. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? Not really, nothing in this article applies to mine except for what is already stated. 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 sections are in a sensible order, starting off with taxonomy, then description, feeding, and spawning. Also as well human threat in the end. 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? Not really. The description is really short when I feel that it could be longer. The rest of the sections are fine, but feeding is a little too long. Everything in the article seems appropriate besides that. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? The article does not seem to be trying to pull the reader to any side, but more providing facts. 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." All words and phrasing appear neutral. 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? There are a few statements that just say “citation needed” so have not been accurately cited. There seems to be a mix of scientific journals and also some blogs that may not be entirely credible. 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. A few statements are related to same source, but not bad enough to believe that it is unbalanced or a single point of view. 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! Just a few that say “citation needed” but other than that, the rest seem to be cited accordingly.

Ksachs123 (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Kayla Sachse