User talk:Amberdesse/Sockeye Salmon/energetics

I will email it to you as well!

Peer Review: Amber Desselle’s Sockeye Salmon/ energetics by Emma Autin

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 that you do a good job on being able to explain your source information in a simple format. I am most impressed by how you were able to produce short sentences that provide all of the information needed (or it’s not “too wordy” is what I am trying to say.) The phase turn between the first two sentences described the subject in a clear way by staying on topic with energy needed for reproduction because the whole energy costs paragraph is about reproduction being marked by depletion in energy not just energy costs in general.

2.What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I would say “Those with more difficult, longer migrations produce...” so that the second sentence can easily be tied to the first. Also, I feel like the last sentence may not be as relevant. I think you should elaborate more on how energy depletion affects reproduction for the third sentence.

3.What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing you could do to improve the article is to change the last sentence to fit with the rest of the information. This would improve your draft because right now it is a standalone piece of information that is maybe a little too broad.

4.Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? Yes! I learned from your draft that simpler is better. I think that my draft is a bit too wordy, and I would like to make it more ‘to the point’ like yours.

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 information is in a sensible order and this piece of information definitely belongs in the energy costs paragraph however it could possibly go somewhere after “Reproduction in the sockeye salmon has to be accomplished with the energy stores brought to the spawning grounds” but not exactly at the end. The last sentence of the energy costs paragraph would not transition well into your first sentence of the draft in my opinion.

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? Yes, the length of each sentence is close to equal, but they are all equally important, so this is good. I think the last sentence is off topic from how reproduction, specifically, depletes the salmon’s energy storage.

7.Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No! There is no bias or persuasive language in the draft.

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! All words and phrases feel 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? One source is from the Journal of Fish Biology and Ecology and Evolution is the second source. Both of these sources are journal articles which are reliable sources.

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. The first two sentences seem to be pulled from The Journal of Fish Biology while the last sentence comes from Ecology and Evolution. Therefore, both sources were used to create this draft. However, I would suggest still using the second source but changing the content of last sentence to relate to energy depletions due to reproduction.

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! There are not any unsourced statements in the article. Both pieces of information were found in the articles listed in the bibliography.

Message:

I think that your biggest strength is your ability to produce short sentences that provide all of the information needed to understand the content. Improvement wise, I think that the first two sentences are great. The last sentence could be more relevant and tie into energy depletions due to reproduction better. Overall, your draft was well written!

Emma Autin

Wikipedia peer review BIOL 4155 Your name: Courtney Morrow Article you are reviewing: Sockeye salmon/energetics 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 information was presented in a very concise way that stated everything that needed to be stated.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I would suggest adding a sentence about how salmon with longer migration routes are more energy efficient than those with shorter migration routes just to make sure the reader knows this information.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing the author can do is to add a sentence explaining what makes them more efficient on longer routes even though they are probably expending more energy on a longer route. It just needs some clarification.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? This is also my article and i think this is a good addition.

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 sections are organized well and do a good job of stating the information in a way that is very easy to understand.

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? Yes the length is perfect for the subject and it never goes off-topic.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the information does not try to sway you it sticks to the facts.

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 whole paragraph feels 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, the statements are connected to reliable sources but the internal citation links aren't there so I cannot tell which statement comes from which source by just reading the addition.

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. They are evenly distributed with the sources.

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, the article is sourced well it just needs those internal citations.

Courtney Morrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtneyMorrow (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)