User talk:Kiesol Stockholm/Channichthyidae

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 does great at presenting a counter argument. I am impressed with this new information being available for publication.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I suggest a rewrite of the information, in a more concise manner. This will help the repetitiveness. 3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Fix the grammatical error and construct a more concise draft. 4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? Yes, I can add a counterargument to the data given. 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? Chronologically, the placement is fine. 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? Everything seems relative to the article and its subject. 7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No it provides another outlook on a evolutionary hypothesis. 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 are no certain phrases of the sort. 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 the information provided is connected to a published scholar article. 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 was only one source provided, so it's all tied to one source. 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, everything presented was from the source.

Your name: Cathryn Coulter

Article you are reviewing: Channichthyidae

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 does a good job of describing the cardiovascular system of the icefish in a clear and simplified way.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I suggest that the author remove some of the phrases that make the edit uncertain, like “may be,” “might be” and “could be”. These are used in every sentence, and in the first sentence there are two.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? To improve the article, the author could talk more about the behavior or habitat of the fish, since most of the article describes physiology.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?

I am editing the article about clownfish. The icefish article does a better job of describing the physiology of the animal, which would be a good addition to my 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?

I would add this as a new paragraph under the “Reason for trait fix” section.

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 is appropriate, and the edit is on-topic.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No, but due to the wording of the edit, it seems like this new information is not a certainty, just a theory, and no other theories are included.

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." There are no neutral phrases.

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.

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 multiple sources that are not too heavily used.

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! The statements from the edit are sourced correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccoult2 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)