User:Paigeberzinski/Glass frog/Cfs015 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Paigeberzinski


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paigeberzinski/Glass_frog?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Glass frog

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead-

The lead has not been edited by my peer in the draft, which I believe is because the lead is of good quality. Though, the lead has a good first sentence that describes the taxonomy of the frog, which is the first topic of the article. It does not clearly introduce all of the article's topics; it only introduces the first one. The lead is very concise, and it outlines all of the topics that the article covers. It does not include any information that the article does not have.

Content-

My peer has done some organization in the camouflage section. The organization done makes the information communication much more clear. There is not much content on the original article, but the content that is there is all relevant to the topic. Most of the content seems to be up-to-date. There is a lot of content missing from this article. Each section needs to have more detail to dive into the species and there is no conservation section. Also, it does not say that the species is threatened in any way, so it needs to have a rating for the species there. The article does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance-

All of the content is very neutral. None of the content attempts to persuade the reader in any way. There are no specific view points that are established in the article.

Sources and References-

All of the content is backed up by reliable secondary sources. In addition, all of the content reflects the information of the sources. Some of the sources seem to be repeating topics about taxonomy of the frogs, and there are only 10 sources, so the sources can definitely be more thorough. All of the sources are pretty relevant besides one source that is from 1977. The sources include a diverse spectrum of authors. There are many more scientific articles on this topic that the article could use. The links work.

Organization-

The content of the original article is broken up into different sections, but the article could use some more organization of the wording.

Images and Media-

The images and media are all captioned and enhance my understanding of the vehicle. Also, all of the images are laid out in an appealing way.

Overall Impressions-

The original article has many opportunities for addition of information, sources, and organization.