User talk:Thidal1/Bowfin/Taufiq.khaled Peer Review

I'm gonna start off by saying i don't know if i'm supposed to put all this here but here it is anyways. 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 Wikipedia page for the article has lots of information on it and is very descriptive.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? It’s kind of hard to find places to improve, but adding on to the physiology section, as it is pretty important and there isn’t too much about gas exchange, which is your assignment anyways.

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

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? The physiology section is much better than my article’s, in fact my article doesn’t have one.

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 article is really organized and has sections in the right places.

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? Nothing seemed off-topic nor unnecessary.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? Not at all, no conclusions were drawn. 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." Nothing that gave biased feelings were found 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 sources of the article are reliable, and both sources provided by the editor were 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.

The article was balanced with 70 articles and not leaning heavily on anything.

Comments on Draft: The draft was pretty short so there isn’t really much to review. I don’t know if its because you aren’t done with it, or maybe I just can’t find it because Wikipedia is kind of hard to navigate. Nothing was wrong with what you wrote, I understood it very easily. But one thing I can say is that the sources don’t have the hyperlink thing on it but its pretty easy to fix. I also noticed your article was pretty good already so its probably hard to find out what to add to it. Taufiq.khaled (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Taufiq Khaled