User:Rhin0771/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Motorbike frog - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article on Motorbike frogs because I think it's important for the public to have access to knowledge regarding everyday creatures they may come across in the wild, no matter how high or low their prevalence may be. I enjoy learning new things about nature and science so reading the article wouldn't be a chore. There is some good information here, but I think with some feedback it could be better presented and more organized.

Evaluate the article
Overall, there is a lot of good information in the article but, it is a little abrupt at times and doesn't flow very nicely for the reader. Some things are repeated, and space filler words are used in a way that kind of chops the article up. Information is presented at a very basic level when scientific terms could be used and defined later. At times statements are made with no explanation or depth into the topic. I would say this article has a lot of potential but is underdeveloped and needs some work.

Lead Section: Very concise and to the point but doesn't highlight what the articles major sections will be.

Content: Content is relevant, but very basic level comprehension. Section headers such as "Ecology and Behavior" is biting off a big chunk of information to convey. Ecology can mean a lot of different things from population distribution, habitat, breeding, life cycle, feeding, ecosystem role, etc. There is room to dive deeper and form a more scientific approach. For example, instead of saying "clump of eggs"; "clutch of eggs" could be used. There's no information about the frog's life cycle, age of maturation, weather they are solitary or not, etc.

Tone and Balance: The writer did a good job at being neutral. There are no viewpoints or bias, just facts about Mototrbike frogs and their ecology or behavior.

Sources and References: Some sources are reliable and from peer reviewed articles or organizations like the IUCN red list, but others are from websites online (.org). Since Motorbike frogs are a common species, it should be rather easy and accessible to find peer reviewed articles about their ecology and behavior.

Organization and Writing Quality: Big sections such as "Ecology and Behavior" should be broken down into smaller subheadings in order to go more in depth. Filler words like "through" are used frequently when not needed and vocab seems to be repetitive with instances where "including" is used twice in a sentence. Facts are left abruptly at the end of paragraphs with no explanation or transitions. Information that would fall under an ecological category is spread throughout the article, specific examples including talking about the behavior of tadpoles under the description along with facts about breeding. The article comes off as nonchalant.

Images and Media: The writer did a good job including many visual and even an auditory representation of the Motorbike frogs. Media is adequately captioned.

Talk Page Discussion: There's really not much in the talk page as the article is listed as C-Class or low importance.