User talk:Beemaxilla/Limacina helicina

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Elizabeth Sander

Article you are reviewing:

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 thought the descriptions of the effects of abiotic stress on L. helicina was very good. It was clear and concise.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I think a short description of transcriptomic plasticity would help further understanding.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Describing transcriptomic plasticity would be a big improve, since it is not very clear by the article what is meant by that term.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?

There isn’t anything that applies to my article.

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?

I think that it makes sense to discuss abiotic stress in the section about the effects of ocean acidification. This is a good place to put the additions.

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?

There isn’t anything off topic in the article. The section length is equal to the importance.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No, it does not have a particular viewpoint.

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, only neutral phrases are used.

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?

Reliable sources are used.

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.

It is balanced.

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 aren’t any unsourced statements in the article

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Mallory Roushar

Article you are reviewing: Limacina helicina

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 article is structured very well, it is set up so that you can follow clearly and the lead is not too over bearing

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

-	I don’t think there are any necessary changes that need to be made to the article.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

-	The most important thing you can do to improve the article would be to make sure what you are placing into the article has background information that backs up why it has this acute abiotic stress.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?

-	One thing that could be applicable to my article would be to have a lot of citations. Almost everything in the article is cited and have clear pictures that show the animal in different views.

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?

-	I assume you are adding this information to the spot in the article where it talks about the feeding habits of the species. I, not sure where else it would be placed to make sense.

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?

-	With the abundance of information in the article, the section lengths see reasonable for their information. I don’t think anything is off topic I think it covers such a wide range of things that I would be hard for something that is placed about the animals or the environment that would seem off topic.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

-	No the article focuses on the species, it is very facts oriented and has a lot of cited articles.

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 there is none of these words or phrases in this article.

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?

-	the article has many different citations from a wide variety of peer reviewed journals. Almost every sentence in the article is cited and they do not rely on self-published authors for the information.

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.

-	With the large abundance of articles cited in the Wikipedia page, the article does not lean into a specific point of view. Many of the articles are cited more than once or even 5 times but it does not rely more heavily on one journal than another.

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, almost every sentence is cited, although in your addition you did not add the citation in through the citation creator while editing, it did not have links and I did not know which sentence came from what article or if you used the two articles to produce and mix the information into one sentence.

Mroush2 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)