User talk:CourtneyMorrow/Sockeye salmon

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 of introducing the species and giving interesting facts. Something that impressed me was how it differentiates the types of salmon from the United States and Canada.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? - I think the "classification and name origin" and "Description" could be put into one category to help better categorizing the article. This change could help with the way the article flows and makes it easier for the reader.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? - The author does a good job of fitting information into a good category that needs to be described more. Citations could be added as a hyperlink at the end of where the cited information stops.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? - The author does a good job of introducing the source of where the information was gathered and I could use that type of introduction in my article.

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? - I believe the article is organized in a sensible order. I believe some things in the article could go with one another like the description of the fish and the classification but other than that it looks like it's in good order. The information where the author wants to add to the article makes sense.

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? -Some sections of the article seem very long and could be more concise in its explanation like reproduction. Maybe the energy cost section under reproduction could be more concise and put in somewhere else without needing its own section. Nothing in the article seems to be off-topic.

7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? - No

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

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. The citations are a reliable source.

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. - No it is evenly spread out between both sources.

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

NK1296 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)