User talk:Hpayne4/Sheepshead minnow/Snowr23 Peer Review

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 well thought out and the sections are placed in a clear way. One thing that impressed me was how detailed the description of the fish is.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I think that the author could change the article by figuring out a way to combine the “Uses” article into another section because it just feels out of place. This would be an improvement to those wanting quick information on this species and not having to read one sentence for one whole section.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think that they could update the behavior and the distribution and habitat as those two sections seem to be the most in need of some information added to them.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? My own article needs to be organized and set up into sections.

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 organized well and make sense. Yes, the information they are adding to the article makes sense where they are putting it.

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, I wouldn’t think that each section’s length equals the importance of it to the article’s subject. I think that the uses section could be combined into another section because it is a small section.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, it just provides the information in a clear and concise manner that makes sense for Wikipedia.

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." I did not find any words or phrases that don’t feel 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? Most of the statements in the article are connected to a reliable source.

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. There are only 5 references but they all seem to add the article in an even manner.

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, I did not find any unsourced statements in the article.