User:JusttheletterE/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Bilbo's rain frog

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because the name of the frog stuck out to me, as I loved the book "The Hobbit" by J.R.R Tolkein as a child. This article matters because there doesn't seem to be many other articles on Bilbo's rain frog, and I wanted to learn more about the frog and see what could be added to the Wikipedia article. When I first read the article I found that the tone of the article did not feel as formal in certain places as a higher rated (A-class) article would have. I also found that there were some gaps in information, for instance the Scientists who discovered the frog was mentioned but never named (I ended up editing in the scientists name, along with some links to the wiki page about J.R.R Tolkien, the wiki page about "The Hobbit", the term truncated, and the term mist belt)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

I can see why this article was given the rating "C-class" it was definitely kind of bare bones, and a lot of the information given needs further elaboration. The links all worked, although there are only nine sources from which the original author(s) used to cite information. The sources used weren't super current, but they also weren't too old. The most recent year for a source was 2017 and the least recent was 1999. The article does not have any apparent biases. The writing is not clear in some places and there seems to be a few instances of repetitive language for instance the word "occurred" was used a bit too frequently. The article is decently organized and is split into relevant sections. There was only one image used (an image of the frog) and it was properly placed and captioned, although some images of the frogs habitat would have been a nice addition to the article. On the talk page there is an unanswered comment left by Rhawki01  who asked what the frogs biggest threat to it's environment (undisturbed grasslands) would be and how to solve the threat. The article is rated as a C-class article, it is a low importance article, and it's part of the reptiles and amphibian articles Wikiproject. One of the article's strengths is that most of the information given is decently detailed, although there is definitely room for further elaboration. In the behavior section, the mating calls are described, their dimorphism is listed, and a brief explanation of their mating behaviors is also listed. However, not much else is described relating to their behavior, perhaps an image of the male adhering to the female would add further explanation to their mating behaviors. I do not think the article is complete, although there appears to be few other articles specifically about Bilbo's rain frog, so adding on to the article could be difficult.