User:Marher2/Brookesia nana/SprengerSprenger Peer Review

General info
Marher2 User:Marher2/Brookesia nana Brookesia nana
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you are reviewing
 * Link to current version of article

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead section:


 * I didn't know what montane meant so maybe link an article (it could just be me though)
 * You added a sentence about how they are restricted to the rainforest but there was already a sentence saying that.
 * I feel like the facts that it doesn't change colors, is an example of paedomorphism, and is not arboreal are specfic and might be better in the description section rather than the lead.
 * The "described in 2021" and then the "discovered by Frank Glaw" sentences could be combined. Maybe like Described in 2021 by herpetologist Frank Glaw and other German researchers, it could respresent ... . The information about the specific of where it was found is interesting though so whatever you want.
 * Overall it seems like a long lead section for how short the article is

Description section:


 * I think the "like other brookesia species" sentence should go before the specifics of the sizes for better flow.
 * I didn't know what tubercles were so maybe add a link
 * That sentence is also confusing. Are you saying that it has tubercles along spine all the way to pelvis or are you saying it has tubercles and also it has a pelvis? If you are saying the later I would recommend making it two sentences because those things don't seem to go together.
 * I don't know what absent dorsal pelvic shield in sacral area means. And looking it up didn't really come up with anything. Maybe just explain that a bit more.
 * Overall it is a good section, I would just make the parts you added flow a little better but it's a rough draft so you probably already knew that.

Evolution section:


 * I feel like this section could be shortened and added to the description section instead of being its own section.
 * Also if this this section true then above in the description the sentence "the reasons for its diminutive size are currently unknown" could be deleted because their lineage might be why. Unless they are particularly miniture even for Brookesia (I wasn't sure).

Conservation status section:


 * I'm assuming being at low elevation makes it more susceptible because of rising ocean levels but maybe expand on that a bit more
 * I'm assuming cattle are a risk factor because people are deforesting to make pasture lands? Or pollution? Maybe specify
 * I think the link you put in for Sorata is for a Sorata in Bolivia not Madagascar
 * I don't think you need to link the article in the article (you linked brookesia nana)
 * Overall a good section with nice flow.

References:


 * This isn't something you put in the article but from the sources it looks like it was discovered in 2012 not 2021.
 * I'm not sure your first reference is relevant. It seems like it's about brookesia in general and not this specific species. I only looked at the abstract though so maybe they talk about it specifically later.
 * You probably already know this but your second and third references are already in the wikipedia article. Obviously you added more information from them I just wanted to make sure you didn't duplicate a reference when you put your changes in.
 * For the CNN article I think there is more information that you could take from it. For example, it says females may be larger because they need to accommodate their eggs.
 * You probably are going to do this, but for your in text citations I would add in more. I think what you did was put in the citation after you had added in everything from the article but I would put it in at least at the end of every section. Otherwise it looks like its not cited.

Overall:

You added a lot of information and the article seems more flushed out now. I would just touch up the flow of your sentences but otherwise it is a really good article.