User talk:Bcradd1/Alpine newt

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Kenneth Edwards

Article you are reviewing: Alpine Newt

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? 1.	The article is very thorough. The article explains predation of the newt in larval and adult stages well without being too complicated. The article as a whole was pretty clear.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? 1.	Parasites of the newt could probably be placed under the predation paragraphs. The only reason is it makes the flow of topics work better, going from diet, to predation/parasites, then to defenses.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? 1.	When giving examples under predation, the examples could be placed in parentheses. Also switching the parasites and defenses paragraphs.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? 1.	Not in particular, outside of how I reference my sources. The topics are too different to be written about similarly in my opinion. I might be able to write more like how this individual did.

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? 1.	The section is organized well, and makes perfect sense where they plan on putting it.

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? 1.	Nothing is off topic and unnecessary. This section is very important and lengthy enough for its importance.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? 1.	No.

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." 1.	No

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? 1.	Yes, they are from very 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. 1.	The first source is referenced to more so than the second source, but considering the length of the article, I would say not referenced to too much.

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! 1.	No, these statements seem properly sourced.