User talk:Ccoult2/Orange clownfish/Bibliography

wiki peer review
Wikipedia Peer review #1 BIOL 4155				Your name: Isabelle Nguyen

Peer review for: Ccoult2 / Orange clownfish

Questions to answer:

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? 	Wiki article: The article is clear in the sense that it is discussing orange clownfish. I was impressed about the conciseness of the article. The article began to abbreviate Amphiprion percula to A. percula which made it easier to read. 	Draft article: I think that she did a good job in clearly discussing orange clownfish olfactory being affected by ocean acidification

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? 	Wiki article: I think that article needs a new section to accommodate for the draft being added. It’s missing the features that clownfish have such as olfactory. 	Draft article: I think the 3 sentences are perfect as is.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? 	Wiki article: I think the most important thing to improve this article is to add a characteristics section in which you discuss the olfactory senses that clownfish have and how it can be affected. 	Draft article: possibly check up on the second source because I can only find the abstract for it. Sources are important so that the statements that are added in are reliable.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! 	My article does not have a characteristics section as well, so I think that both articles could benefit from this.

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? 	Currently the article’s sections is presented as description, reproduction, recruitment, habitat, and development. I think that this order is good, but it could also be description, habitat, development, reproduction, and then recruitment. 	Currently I think that she wanted to put it as a new paragraph under habitat, but I think it would be better as its own section after development.

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, each section is important and necessary and even.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? 	No, the article seems more so informative not so much persuasive.

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, the article remains fairly neutral

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? 	References are reliable sources from scholarly articles

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. 	Fairly dispersed for the most part but I see article 3 and 10 come up a bit

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! 	Wiki article: Article 3 seems somewhat unsourced. It doesn’t have a doi to lead to for the Wikipedia article 	Draft article: check the second source that you have because it only shows an abstract for me.

Overview 	I think that the draft would be a great, reliable addition to the orange clownfish article because it doesn’t have information on this yet. I do think that a new section should be made for this so that it’s easier to read. I also think a check up on the second source would be appropriate because I could not find the full article. I was only able to find the abstract. I think that your draft is very well worded and clear. Great job! Iz Nguyen (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)