User talk:Hberna4/sandbox

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Cathryn Coulter

Article you are reviewing: Rainbow Trout

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 is very thorough in describing the effect that humans have had on this species, as well as a detailed description of their uses.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? The author could include more specific information about the physiology about the fish. This would be an improvement because the article mainly focuses on how humans affect/ use the fish, instead of information about the actual fish itself.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The inclusion of the author makes your edit a bit wordy. I think you could leave that out, and if the reader wants to know more about the article, he/she can look to your sources.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? Yes, this edit includes a reference to a specific study done about the species, indicating that it is just one study and not a widely accepted and tested theory.

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 think it could be its own paragraph under “Description.” I don’t think that there is enough information in the edit to make it its own subsection.

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 length of the sections seems equal to their importance and on-topic.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? The last statement of the edit starts with “the most likely cause is…”. I would add “according to the study,” at the beginning of this sentence to indicate that this is not your opinion, and instead the conclusion from the article.

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." All the statements are 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? All sources are reliable and scholarly. 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 is well balanced on 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! All of the statements are accurately sourced. Ccoult2 (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Cathryn Coulter