User talk:Eautin1/sandbox

Wikipedia peer review BIOL 4155 Your name: Courtney Morrow Article you are reviewing: Salmon/Eautin1

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 explaining the physiology of fish switching environments from freshwater to the ocean. I thought the intro was described in a clear way.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I think that since the beginning starts with "this body chemistry change" this is very specific and needs to go into a specific place in the life cycle section and i think that should be stated. It just says "add to life cycle section" which is vague considering it is talking bout a specific body chemistry change.

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

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? I did notice that this article about salmon in general is very similar to my article “sockeye salmon” and they were mentioned several times throughout. I don’t think the two articles are comparable because mine is a branch of this article and is more detailed and specific

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 sections are well organized and flow well together.

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, it is short and to the point and explains the information well.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the article 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 is written with an unbiased and it just stating information.

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 statement are connected to reliable sources and linked in a way that is accessible.

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 article takes from different sources and seems to be from different points of view.

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, everything is sourced correctly.