User talk:Dkwillsey/Microgadus tomcod

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Elizabeth Sander

Article you are reviewing: Microgadus tomcod

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?

I thought that they explained the results of prolonged exposure well. And it flows nicely in the location they would add it in.

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

It might help to add something after “a key factor”, a key factor in what?

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

Citations need to be added in the article.

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

No

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?

It flows nicely where they are adding it in the article

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?

The sections are equal in length and importance

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 it is 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?

Reliable sources are used

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.

The sources need to be cited in 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 aren’t unsourced statements, but the sources need to be referenced in the article