User talk:Wmartin21/European eel/Camrynkeller Peer Review

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Camryn Keller

Article you are reviewing: European Eel

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 think that the author explained what silvering is and why it is necessary for the eels very well. The second sentence explains what exactly is happening when the eels silver, which is very necessary information. I also think that the author chose the proper location for the article.

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

I would definitely go through and check for grammatical mistakes. For example, “process of a, yellow, immature” does not need the comma directly after “a.” I would also add further explanation for what cristoles are, especially if it is not further discussed in the Wikipedia article already because it would be helpful to know how they contribute to migration. Also, the wording of the last sentence is a bit confusing because I don’t think silvering is achieved by metamorphosis but more like silvering is one part of the eels metamorphosis.

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

Clarifying the last sentence and giving more explanation on why exactly and increased amount of cristoles is necessary for eel migration.

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

The author has the citation noted in the draft, which I need to do in 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?

The sentences are added in a place that makes sense for the reader. The paragraph is discussing the metamorphological process that eels must go through before migrating, so adding sentences that are also about this process makes sense.

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 in the draft is off-topic, but the last sentence could be clarified so that it is easier for the reader to understand.

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

No, the article is not persuasive.

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, the article is 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?

Yes, all of the sources are reliable, peer-reviewed publications.

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, the author uses four sources.

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, all of the sources are accurately represented in the draft.