User talk:Esand16/Shark

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Camryn Keller

Article you are reviewing: Sharks

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 draft gets the point across that the size of the olfactory bulbs depends on the environment that the shark is in. There are also no grammatical errors, so there is no need to worry about that.

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

I would add in an opening sentence about if the size and/or the number of olfactory bulbs depends on the environment because the first two sentences discuss the size of them, but the last sentence discusses the number of bulbs. Also, I would reword the second sentence because it reads awkward, and I had to reread it multiple times to understand the point. This would help clarify the point you are trying to make.

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

Clarifying the second sentence would be the most important improvement because it will help the flow of the paragraph and help the reader understand more easily.

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

This article has the citations within it, and I need to add those into my draft.

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, this draft discusses olfactory bulbs, which are involved in the shark’s sense of smell, so adding it to the “Smell” section 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?

No, there is nothing that is completely off topic or unnecessary since each sentence contributes to the overall point of the draft.

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

No, the article is not persuasive.

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 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?

Yes, all of the sources are reliable, peer-reviewed publications.

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, the author uses four 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, all of the sources are accurately represented in the draft.