Overall, the Article; Functional mismatch in a bumble bee pollination mutualism under climate change (Miller-Struttman et al., 2015) conforms to technical writing standards, however, the article stands to improve in some areas. One area of improvement that the article could stand to improve on, is the area of clarity. Miller-Struttman et al.’s article lacks in clarity due to the fact that nearly all of its complex terminology lacks a corresponding definition, resulting in the reader having to make assumptions of meaning purely from context. For example, in the second paragraph of Struttman’s article, the authors discuss the benefits of having matching functional morphology. However, the authors begin using complex terminology such as, “changes that disrupt such matching can alter plant species recruitment and the trajectory of coevolution” (Miller Struttman et al., 2015). Undefined, complex terminology can lead to misunderstandings of an article’s true purpose due to misinterpretation from context. Not only does Miller-Struttman et al.’s article lack in clarity due to a lack of definitions, but the article would also benefit in the realm of clarity by organizing its tables adjacent to the paragraphs that explain said information. Struttman et al.’s article does go in depth on the data acquired through their experimentation, however, the information and the corresponding explanation of the data are structured far enough apart within the article, that the reader then has to hunt and peck for the information being discussed, leading to a loss of understanding. Finally, though less frequent, Struttman et al.’s article had some instances of ambiguous pronouns, especially when discussing the “matching of functional morphology between partners increasing benefits i