User talk:Mkeega4

Welcome!
Hello, Mkeega4, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Xyviara Davis 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 contains a great deal of basic information about mudskippers. The part of the article that impressed me the most is the attention that the authors paid on the adaptation section of the article.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Although the article contains a lot of information about mudskippers, the article can be organized or rearranged in a different way. Some of the information is duplicated in within different headlines.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing the author can do to improve the article is to add more information. The article is fairly short, so I believe adding more information about this species is a good idea.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? I noticed that this article includes links to the article that is cited after the section where the information is present. I would like to use this method to make the information more accessible to readers.

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? The section “Species” is the last section on the article. This seems more like an introductory section that would go better at the beginning of the article. The information that you are adding needs to be placed in the article, but i do not see where you would like to make the additon.

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? As stated earlier, I believe that this article could include more information about the mudskipper. The article only includes 4 sections of information. 7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? The article is informational. However, I do not see a point where all of the information is concluded and a point is clear.

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 notice any phrases that did not feel neutral or had negative connotations in the 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? Most of the information included in the article is connected to a large array of reliable sources such as peer reviewed articles and 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. There is a nice balance between the information in the article and the sources. There was a lot of sources to account for the information presented. 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 first paragraph of the taxonomy section does not include any sources. Other than that, the information looks well supported.

Xyvi (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Xyviara Davis

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? I understand what you are trying to say, but I am not sure why they would do this? Maybe adding a topic sentence could help and navigate the reader into the topic that is going to be discussed.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I would just add some background as to why they excrete ammonium ions.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? If you have any sources that can support the facts, you are providing I think they would help readers if they wanted to know more about that topic.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? No

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’m not sure where the sentences would be added, but maybe adding a new section would be helpful because there is no section that really talks about this in the article.

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 everything seems informative and important.

7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, it was very neutral and provided informative 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." The only thing I saw that may be considered this is “which may also reduce”, but I don’t really find it to not be 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? I am not sure if I could not see your sources or if they were not added yet.

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. No, there were no sources in the paper.

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! Yes

Wmartin21 (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)