User:Javenemani/Oophaga sylvatica/Honorherring 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? (provide username) Javenemani
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Javenemani/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it explains a very important defense mechanism for this species and how they are able to possess that mechanism.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the resources used for the content are very recent, both being within the past 5 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, I think all the information added to the topic was relevant and informative.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is unbiased information on a defense mechanism the species Oophaga sylvatica possesses that is backed by reputable sources.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it is all straightforward information on the use of toxins as a defense mechanism and the source of the toxins. There is no position to be had, just facts being shared.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all of the information seemed necessary in explaining the topic in an unbiased and informative way to the reader.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it just states information, there is no position to be had.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are no in text citations included, so it is difficult to be sure. The article used are resources are reputable scientific journal articles, so the information is likely reliable, just need to make sure to include in text citations in order for the reader to know where the information is coming from.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources used are both very recent studies that are done specifically on this species, so the information is very beneficial to be included in the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes they were both published within the last 5 years, making them very relevant and up to date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the articles are written by a diverse range of ethnicity and gender.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The link to the article "Radiation and Hybridization of the Little Devil Poison Frog (Oophaga Sylvatica) in Ecuador" did not work for me, but the other one did.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is very straightforward and presents neutral information pertaining to the species Oophaga sylvatica that is backed by scientific journal articles.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The only big error I noticed was in the third sentence, I believe the phrase was meant to be "These frogs do not produce..", it is just missing the word "do."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think the content is well organized and flows well, I jut wanted to note that I think the third sentence could probably be combined with the second sentence in a way to reduce the amount of words used and to make the flow a little better. Overall really good structure though.

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


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

For New Articles Only -N/A
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?

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?