User talk:CourtneyMorrow/sandbox

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Hunter Bernard

Article you are reviewing: Sockeye Salmon (CourtneyMarrow)

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 contribution does a good job of making it clear that the adaptation to thermoregulate is not present in all Sockeye Salmon.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

The author needs to add proper citations to their contribution and fix the flow of their contribution. They need to add more punctuation and reorganize the wording of the sentences.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Add proper citations with working links.

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

I noticed the lack of information added to the lead in context of their contribution, and I also need to edit the lead to add the information about my contribution.

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 articles sections are very well organized and in a sensible order. No, they are fine the way they are.

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 sections seem the proper length and there are no off-topic and unnecessary topics present.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No, it is unbiased.

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 I neutral in its phrasing.

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, most sources are connected to reliable sources of information.

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, there are many sources sighted throughout the article.

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!

There are some unsourced statements in the lead, but similar info seems to be sourced later on in the article’s sections/topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hberna4 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)