User talk:Kedwa39/Pterygoplichthys anisitsi

Article you are reviewing: Pterygoplichthys anisitsi

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? There’s nothing good about this article besides simple background information summarized in about 4-5 sentences with a source for each sentence.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? First thing I would suggest is to organize this article with a table of contents by creating multiple sections for this article. Anything the author does, will make this article better.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Create a new topic section for this article and giving this article a sense of organization.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? Nothing can be taken from this article that’s applicable to my article because my article is far more developed than this article.

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? No they are not, because there’s no sense of organization in this article. The location of the edit is not mentioned, it’s like the article just random statements placed together with no sense of organization.

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? There’s no section listed as there’s only one paragraph for this article.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the article is dense but unbiased as the statements are neutral.

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, this article is neutral; it doesn’t have anything.

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 sources listed to these articles seem like they are unreliable and are not textbooks are journal articles; they are just random graphs or self-published by authors.

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. This articles lacks a lot, but there’s sources for each sentence keeping the article balanced. It should be noted that these statements are not reliable.

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! Most of the sources listed do not make sense with the given statements throughout the article. Once you have answered these questions, you should post them as a message on their User Talk page (see above for instructions on how to do that).

Message: Editor should give this article a sense of organization, don’t settle by just knowing anything you do will make this article better. State what you’ve done to edit your article.