User:Natedavino/Red-backed salamander/CooperOfford Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Natedavino


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Natedavino/Red-backed salamander - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Red-backed salamander - Wikipedia

Lead:

 * The lead is concise. The student I am editing did not make any additions to it yet.
 * There is an introductory sentence to introduce the article topic, which is good.
 * The parts of the lead talking about phylogeny and distribution aren't talked about anywhere else in the article, but my peer didn't talk about that stuff so it's not their fault that there aren't sections on it, but it would be nice to be added. There should also maybe be an additional few sentences in the lead that summarize the upcoming sections discussed. My peer would only need to add stuff to it that they talked about.

Content:

 * The content added is relative to the topic, which is good.
 * Most of the content looks to be up to date, within the last 10-20 years or so, which is good.
 * I don't think this article deals with any equity gaps. (Although salamanders as a whole are probably an understudied field....)
 * I would just say that more information should be added over time on distribution and physiology maybe (which my peer mentioned would happen). The article seems short, but what it has is relevant and informative. Adding stuff on diet would be nice too, like my peer mentioned.

Tone:

 * There are no claims which seem biased, which is good. Looks to be neutral.
 * It does not look like anything is over or underrepresented and there is no persuasion happening, which is good.
 * The only thing I might say is at the end of your addition on the polymorphisms, you draw a conclusion saying what it might indicate. There is no source with it, so I'm not sure if this is your own conclusion or not, but I think on wiki we aren't supposed to draw our own conclusions? (If this is from a source I think it's fine, I really don't know, but maybe check it out.)

Sources:

 * The sources look to be current and thorough. All of the information comes from various journals of biology, ecology, and herpetology.
 * The links work and take me to the papers or the journals. It looks like the information in the papers matches what is added to the article, which is good.

Organization:

 * The content added is concise, clear, and well written. I did not see any grammatical mistakes.
 * The content added looks to be in the appropriate sections, which is good. My peer brings up a good point that in the future they may add new sections that fit their added material better.

Images and media:

 * I don't believe my peer added any images or media.

Overall impressions:

 * I think the added content strengthens the article and makes it more complete. The quality of the article is improved with it.
 * I think the content on diet, environmental requirements, and polymorphism climate interactions are all good pieces of info that strengthen the article.
 * To improve, I would just say keep adding more maybe? It looks like more could be added to topics on physiology and distribution. Also maybe some stuff on phylogeny/evolutionary history.
 * Good job.