User talk:Cassidypoodle/Siphamia tubifer/Tigerfan2024 Peer Review

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 well-written and contains specific descriptions of the biological adaptation at hand. It is well-organized, concise, and engaging.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Perhaps a few additional words after the part about using the bioluminescence to attract fish to specify a suggested evolutionary adaptation? It appears that is what is being suggested that the light helps them feed. Maybe a bit more on why this may be beneficial? Or if it appears to be evolutionarily linked?

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Overall, it is extremely well organized and is very specific. Maybe a few minor additions on how the bacteria species helps the fish- in terms of feeding or other factors that increase fitness, but other than that is extremely well-written.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? The enhanced specificity is applaudable. I had no issues in trying to figure out how this mechanism worked, and I hope to use this level of specificity in my own paragraph to ensure the proper coverage of my topic.

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? Yes, the paragraph is organized and flows smoothly. I cannot see exactly where this paragraph intends to be placed on the Wikipedia page based on the sandbox draft, but I imagine it will be placed under a physiology section.

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, all the information is balanced, and each sentence delivers something unique to the paragraph. No sentences appear to be off-topic, and all feature something else to add to the paragraph.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the article is written neutrally and does an excellent job of describing a biological phenomenon and new research supporting the findings.

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." Nope, everything appears to be neutral and delivered in a matter-of-fact manner.

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 features two scholarly sources that offer no questions of credibility within them.

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 article describes both papers in a balanced manner and does not appear to be unbalanced or single-point-of-view oriented.

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, all sentences are properly cited, and the information provided appears to be valid and supported by their citations.