User talk:Mroush2/Four-eyed fish

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Hunter Bernard

Article you are reviewing: Four-Eyed Fish (Mroush2)

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?

Mroush2 did a very good job of going in and reorganizing the original section of physical characteristics to have their added info flow better. Instead of just adding in their info as a separate paragraph he added is into the existing paragraph and made it flow very well.

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

I would suggest possibly adding a small snippet or summary of his information to the lead of the article. The changes would improve the article because it would allow someone to see that information summarized in the lead, allowing them to know that the info is present in the body of the article.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Add a summary of their contribution to the article to the lead of the article; change the lead information about physical characteristics to reflect the info they had added.

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

I could apply reorganizing the section my contribution is in to incorporate it into an existing paragraph to improve the flow of the 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?

Yes the sections are well organized in a sensible order. I do not see a different presentation being beneficial.

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?

Yes. No the sections are all well done and are not off-topic.

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

No, the article is very unbiased. 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, no such words are present.

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 statements are mainly pooled from reliable sources such as textbooks or 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.

Most of the articles statements are attributed to three different sources. I would say it is not completely unbalanced, but more sources could be beneficial.

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!

There are statements in the lead of the article that do not have sources associated to them.