User:Montgomeryr28/Amphibian Ark/Otter2000 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Montgomeryr28


 * Link to draft you're reviewing::User:Montgomeryr28/Amphibian Ark - Wikipedia:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Amphibian Ark - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Considering that there were no goals included with this article, I am not sure what the purpose behind the revisions that were made. In regard to the lead section, I cannot easily identify what the lead is or if there is a lead at all. If the lead is supposed to be the first paragraph, it has not changed from the original article with the exception of adding a new source to the ending of the paragraph. The lead should be added or expanded on talking about the overall subjects of the paper and providing more background information on the Amphibian Ark.

Regarding the content, what was added is relevant to the topic overall, but in some places, it feels like what content was already there was just reworded with a new source. In others only new sources were added to the previously existing text. The two sections added, I assume, about amphibian conservation and species criteria are great additions, I just wish there was more information about each topic included there.

Regarding the tone and balance, it feels very neutral, leaving bias out. I can see how someone may think that the section on amphibian conservation may be trying to be bias, but I feel like it is incorporated in a neutral way.

Regarding the sources and references added, all sources are fairly current. They all are stemming from journals that are within 10-15 years old. A lot of the material that was selected came from the official Amphibian Ark website, so I do not know how reliable that is, only because of some bias that may come from it being the official website. One source, when I clicked on the link, says it is coming from a textbook published by the University of Chicago press, so again I do not know how reliable this information is as it is not peer reviewed literature. All of the links work minus one. The author diversification is ok with the exception of the information pulled from the official website.

Regarding organization, the added information is added in an easy-to-read manner, and it does flow well with the original material left from the original article. The grammar and spelling errors are subtle and kept to a minimum throughout the added material. The added information is well organized and broken down into new sections.

No images or media were added so that is not applicable.