User:Ark2511/Chemical defense/Spaceotter63 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Ark2511
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ark2511/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
No, the Lead has not been updated. N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Yes, all new content is relevant to the topic of Chemical Defense. Yes, I think all the content added comes from reasonably current sources. All content seems to belong, but I would suggest adding more information about the way these frogs avoiding poisoning themselves because I think the sentence you wrote describing this process can be more informative. Maybe you could add what the "amino acid substitutions" do to prevent poisoning the frog? Also, I wanted to suggest providing some information on other amphibians other than frogs since that's what you titled the section. Alternatively, you could label the section "Frogs" maybe? I don't think this article deals with an equity gap or a historically underrepresented topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Yes, I think everything added sounds neutral. No, no heavily biased claims. No, I don't think any viewpoints are portrayed in either of those ways. No, it is not persuasive in that way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Yes, all content additions are cited. Yes, I think the sources have a lot of strong and relevant information on this topic. Yes, I think the sources are fairly recent. One is from the 90s, which may contain old information, but all the others are good. The sources are written by predominantly white men, a few white women, and one person of color, as far as I could tell. I don't think this is a very diverse spectrum of authors. Not really. Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Yes, I think all statements are well-written. I would suggest moving the last sentence you wrote to the end of the first paragraph because I think it would go better with that paragraph's topic. I also think that you include a lot of information that vary in focus. For example, you incorporate medical uses for the toxin these frogs produce and how these frogs avoid poisoning themselves in the same paragraph. These seem like very different ideas to me and I think they would be better placed in separate paragraphs. I think the content is well-organized but more information on other amphibians, like I mentioned above, would make this section more complete.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Yes, I think the content added is a great and original contribution to this article on Chemical Defense. The strengths of this new content are that all the information provided is relevant to the article being added to, sentence structure and grammar are great, and the information is conveyed in an engaging way. I think the content can be improved by changing the location of some of the statements to clarify the focus of paragraphs and by adding some additional information to some of the ideas presented. I recommend checking out one of the authors of one of the papers you used in your sources; I think his name is Kyle Summers. He has done a lot of work on poisonous frogs, which may be helpful for this assignment.