User talk:Beemaxilla/Limacina helicina/Mroush2 Peer Review

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 does a good job in terms of structure and content. I like how the article talks about the subspecies and then then where they are found and so on. The images in the article do a good job at explaining what the reader is looking at and helps with the flow of the article.

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 changes that are necessary for the article

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

-	The most important thing the author could do to improve the article would be to make sure that what is added flows into the article. Make sure the article has the needed information so that what is added is not random.

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

-	One thing that I could add into my article having looked at this one would be to have more pictures in the article so that the reader is able to view what you are talking about.

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 of the article are well organized and flow. I like the flow of the article, it helps the reader understand certain information about the species that otherwise be confusing if not in this order. I assume you are adding your information into the feeding habits of the article. If not I believe that the information would make more sense in this part of the article.

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 lengths of the articles make sense for the information that is proved. There is not one section that dominates and there is not a section that is unnecessary or off topic.

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

-	No the article is based on facts and does not try to persuade or convince the reader of a specific point of view.

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, from reading the article I believe that is neutral in its phrasing and wording.

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, almost every sentence in the article is cited by a published source in peer reviewed journals. With 37 total sources the article seems very reliable.

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.

-	A lot of the articles are sources more than 5 times, although this may seem like the article may be unbalanced but the Wikipedia article is well cited and thorough. It does not lean too heavily into a single point of view.

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 well cited and thorough. Mroush2 (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)