User talk:Mpolit4/Mummichog

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 has several different sections that describes different things about the Mummichog. The scientific unity section is what impresses me the most because Mummichogs can tolerate extreme varieties of chemical conditions to help study evolution.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? The changes I would suggest is to edit the “Interest to Humans” section because this section only contains one sentence. The student decided to edit the “Physiology” section which is one of the more developed sections of this paper so far.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? As stated in question number 2, editing the “Interest to Humans” section could be the most important change, but the author can use better syntax in their edit than what they have so far.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? No, there’s no correlation between the Mummichog article and my article of the Grant’s Gazelle. This article is more developed than 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 believe the author placed their edit in the correct section, their statement makes sense and it flows well with the previous work.

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 “Diet” and “Interest to Humans” sections are the two eye sores of this article, they each share only one sentence each. The “Fishing” section of this article would be the only thing I consider off topic from the article’s purpose.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, this is an unbiased article that just throws a bunch of facts together that could be assorted into a better manner.

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 unbiased!

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? Majority of the statements I clicked on took me to a reliable source such as journal articles. No self-published blogs appeared to be apart of any source I clicked on.

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, this article has over 50 sources listed, as this article is pretty well developed.

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! This article has no unsourced statements, statements founded appear to be correct.

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: Despite your edit flowing well with the physiology section, you can edit your sentences with better syntax. Everything looks good in this article, besides the”Diet” and “Interest to Humans” section, if you can I would suggest giving this an edit.