User talk:Iz Nguyen/Deep sea fish

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155	      Your name: Mallory Roushar

Article you are reviewing: Deep sea fish

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 by itself if very informative and has a lot of details explaining the environment and the different species of fish that live in the deep sea.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -	I don’t think there are any necessary changes that need to be made to the article. I like where you placed the added information, with all the information in the article it may be hard to find where to place it specifically.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -	The most important thing you can do to improve the article would be to say which of the fishes or species have the RH1 Opsin gene.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? -	One thing that could be applicable to my article would be adding information about genes although my articles did not have definite answers for how these genes worked and helped the organisms.

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 information you are adding makes sense where it is being placed. Unless you place it under a specific species that has that gene.

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? -	With the abundance of information in the article, the section lengths see reasonable for their information. I don’t think anything is off topic I think it covers such a wide range of things that I would be hard for something that is placed about the animals or the environment that would seem off topic.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -	No the article focuses on the deep sea fish, it is very facts oriented and has a lot of cited articles.

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 there is none of these words or phrases in this article.

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? -	the article has 51 different cited journal articles that have been published in various nature journals.

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. -	With the large abundance of articles cited in the Wikipedia page, the article does not lean into a specific point 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 I was not able to find such things in the article.

Mroush2 (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)