User:Paigeberzinski/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Glass frog

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I think frogs are really cool, so I looked around for some articles on endangered frogs. I thought this article was a good fit since there was no section on conservation, and all existing sections had a very limited amount of information.

Evaluate the article
Lead - The lead is concise, but talks little about what is in the article. It primarily focuses on the appearance of glass frogs and nothing else.

Content - There is a lot of content focusing on the discovery of glass frogs, and the article names every specific species of glass frogs. However, most of the characteristics section was spent talking about other types of frogs. Additionally, it is missing content on conservation, despite glass frogs being classified as an endangered species by the IUCN.

Tone and Balance - The article is written from a neutral point of view. There is occasionally some word choice that seems extreme/vague however, such as "mystery," "significantly," and "seems to be."

Sources and References - The information seems to all come from cited sources, however most are outdated and have faulty links.

Organization and Writing Quality - The article is well-written and organized. It is easy to understand with no grammatical errors.

Images and Media - The images are good quality and are well-captioned, although they lack in variety.

Talk Page Discussion - There is little conversation on the talk page, with the majority just discussing changes in external link sources. The last post on the talk page was from four years ago (2018).

Overall Impressions - While this article has detailed information for some sections, it lacks in others. Additionally, the lead is poor and the article as a whole is missing critical information on conservation efforts. The sources also need improvement, with most of them being old references with links that no longer function.