User:Roosterchair/Phyllomedusa sauvagii/KyleMadden24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Roosterchair


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Roosterchair/Phyllomedusa sauvagii


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Phyllomedusa sauvagii

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.)

The original article has what could be considered a very small and simple lead which makes sense given how short and new the article appears to be, but it will likely need to be added to in order to have it mention the other section of the article that this writer will be adding to the original. Adding a little information about the other content of the article couldn't hurt either just to improve upon the original lead a bit more as well.

The content added has a good amount of information on the topics of thermoregulation and oviposition/embryo development for the frogs which isn't as of yet discussed in the article. The content appears to all be relevant and up to date given that even information on the physiology of certain animals will likely be accurate for a number of decades given the length of time it normally takes for serious evolution to take place, and since they haven't gone extinct yet either the information should be recent enough. There isn't really much of an equity gap that can be accounted for in an article talking about physiology of a frog so this part doesn't affect anything here too much. The content all seems to belong for the topic being written about as well.

There really isn't any information here that isn't just statements based on facts about the physiology of the frogs, and as such there isn't really any problem to be had with balance or tone of the information, as there isn't anything that could be considered an opinion this draft.

The sources here could use a little work. While the sources the writer has seem to be reliable two of them seem to have errors in the date for the articles or books being cited. The fifth citation is also missing a link to the article that was being cited. I'm not totally sure but I think there may have also been something about trying to find 7 articles in total (there are only 6 on mine right now because I still have to add the one I had to request from the library) if that's the case then finding two more could be helpful.

The organization and structure of their writing seems to be fine and could be added to the original article fairly easily given how new the original article is. There doesn't seem to be too much organizational work that needs to be done for this paper to insert it into the original work effectively.

This draft doesn't have any pictures and given that there are already two in the original article and the small size of the original article I think they were right not to add any pictures yet since they would've over taken the content and the article look odd.

Overall I would say they have done a decent job in preparing their draft for being added to the actual article. There are a few issues as I mentioned with the sources and citations part, but other than that it seems like a fairly solid draft to move forward with.