User talk:Ccoult2/sandbox

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 has good content sections.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * The article has very little content, so there could be more sections added to it.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * More research could be done on the species, and more information could be added to the article.

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


 * This article is related to a species of fish, and my article is related to a species of frog, so those are two completely different animals. The only thing that they have in common is the fact that they both can live in water environments.

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 are very well organized. The order in which they are placed is very nice and I wouldn’t change anything. As for the information being added, the author hasn’t added their changes into the article yet.

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?
 * Each section is very full in length and important to the article. There is no section that is unnecessary to the article.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * No, the article just discusses the lifestyle, development, reproduction, etc. of clown fish.

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."
 * I didn’t see any phrases that seems to not be neutral. Everything in the article is informational towards clown fish.

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?
 * Most of the statements in the article come from reliable sources, like journal 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.
 * Most of the information int eh article comes from sources 3, 5, and 10. Therefore, the article could be a little unbalanced.

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!
 * All of the statements in the article seem to be referenced in the sources listed.Javenemani (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)