User talk:Jalashiareliford/Spotted Lungfish

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? -I found the content to be very descriptive and informative without adding any unnecessary information. It was very concise, but straight to the point.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -There is not much I would change about this article because I feel like the content added was brief and concise enough for a reader to understand. The only additional information I could see being useful to add would be to add any consequences, if any, to this adaptation.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -I thought that the information provided did a good job of explaining this adaption and the mechanism, as mention in the previous question, the only other information I would suggest including would be consequences of the adaptation, but it is likely that there might not be any information or studies done on that yet.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? -I was impressed with the structure of the content, because it is very concise without being too wordy and confusing the reader. When going back to edit my article, I'm going to consider removing any unnecessary information or phrases.

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 flow of the content was very easy to follow as a reader. The placement of the new information is well thought out because it explains why the spotted lungfish does not aestivate, as stated in the paragraph that will be come before the new content.

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? -Being that the section added is very crucial in understanding how the lungfish is able to breathe, there was enough information to inform the reader on the topic. There is very little information on the lungfish in the first place, and this section seems to be the longest, but it is very important in understanding the lungfish's physiology.

7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -No it gives unbiased, scientifically backed information.

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, as stated above, the information given is very neutral and just informs the reader on information with evidence backed by scientific studies.

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, most statements in the article are backed by a reliable source and cited.

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 entire article is very short, but still contains 5 resources, with the newly added content and every sentence is cited and backed by a scientific article, so I think that it is very neutral in informing the reader.

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 backed by a reliable resource.