User talk:Catherinehalphen1/Anolis/Jckmena Peer Review

Peer Review
I've just completed your peer review. Good luck with midterms!

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 author provided interesting and important information that is organized in a sensible way.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? •	I would suggest including more transitional words and introductory phrases within the drafted article. By doing so it would make the information more digestible. •	I would also suggest maybe editing or removing the last sentence since it focuses more on the methods of the reference’s research rather than the conclusions of the paper (as it relates to the actual species): “Genomic scans, DNA sequencing, and transcriptomics provide useful data to understanding the genotypic changes that occur in a population due to these winter storms.” By editing this sentence, the author might be able to refocus the section on their species and improve clarity.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? •	I think that implementing more transitional words and introductory phrases would be the most important thing, just so that there would be a little bit more clarity. 4.	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 author is separating their new information into a new section (named “Physiology”), which will create better organization within the article. However, it seems like the author’s new information focuses more on the evolution and genetics of the Anolis rather than its physiology, so I’m not sure it would be a perfect fit for a physiology section.

5.	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? •	As I mentioned in question 1, the only sentence that didn’t seem to be completely “on-topic” was the last one.

6.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? •	No, the drafted article is completely unbiased and informative.

7.	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 drafted article does not include any extra phrases that might carry any sort of connotation. 8.	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 author’s statements are supported by two peer-reviewed journal articles.

9.	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. •	No, it seems like information is taken from both references equally.

10.	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, it seems like the statements provided are supported by the references.

Jckmena (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)